Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Community Hospitals

Mr. Shaun Woodward: What assessment he has made of the likely impact on (a) health service provision and (b) social services provision in Oxfordshire of the proposed closure of community hospitals in the county. [72373]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I am sure that, before I answer the hon. Gentleman's question, the whole House will want to express its sympathy to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on her recent bereavement.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had a number of meetings with right hon. and hon. Members from Oxfordshire, including the hon. Gentleman, local general practitioners and other interested groups to discuss Oxfordshire health authority's proposals. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend is currently considering those proposals in detail.

Mr. Woodward: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will know that it has been more than a year since consideration of the future of community hospitals in my constituency began. There is huge uncertainty, which means that it is becoming impossible to recruit nurses to community hospitals, because they do not know whether they will have a job in six months' time. Does he also know that the Oxford Radcliffe said that currently 16 of its 26 patient assessment areas are blocked because it cannot get people out into community hospital beds—and that is with the three community hospitals still open? It has also said that losing 52 beds in my constituency will have a catastrophic effect on health, not only in west Oxfordshire, but in Oxfordshire as a whole.
Does the Minister accept that cuts for social services this year, under which Oxfordshire will lose £10.5 million, will create an impossible situation for those who require health care and social services? An urgent decision by Ministers on keeping open Burford, Witney and Chipping Norton community hospitals is absolutely essential.

Mr. Hutton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is urgently considering the proposals. As I said, we intend to discuss them and the available options in detail with all the interested parties. However, we are clear that any changes in Oxfordshire must lead to a modern and dependable health service for local people, and our priority is to ensure that. We recognise the important role that community hospitals play in delivering locally based patient care, but it is the responsibility of individual health authorities to determine the most appropriate balance of health services for their population and to ensure that those services are provided in the most clinically effective and resource efficient manner.

Dr. Evan Harris: Does the Minister accept that the proposal to close community hospitals in Oxfordshire, which also affects Abingdon community hospital, was made at a time when the Government were sticking to Conservative spending plans, before the comprehensive spending review settlement, and before the savage cuts to social services that have been forced on Oxfordshire county council by a combination of the settlement and the crazy capping system? Will he give an undertaking that some of the money in the comprehensive spending review will be available to give Oxfordshire people what they want—good quality local care, at a level that is affordable to the health service, in their local community hospitals?

Mr. Hutton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a limit on what I can say today because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently reviewing all the proposals. My right hon. Friend is doing that in an inclusive and open fashion, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges and supports that.
On the issue of resources for Oxfordshire county council and its social services budget, I do not recognise the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). In 1998–99, total social services expenditure for Oxfordshire was £76.8 million; next year, it will be £78.2 million.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Does the Minister agree that the role of community hospitals is vital in reducing waiting lists in a legitimate way that benefits patients? The record of community hospitals in Oxfordshire and elsewhere is rather better than the hon. Gentleman's record of fiddling the figures. Why will he not admit that the total number of patients now waiting to get on the waiting list has increased by more than 220,000, and that, therefore, today's real waiting list figure is half a million more than he boasts?

Mr. Hutton: None of that has anything to do with the question or the issue of hospitals in Oxfordshire. I have already tried to make clear the importance we attach to the role of community hospitals. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to check Hansard tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NHS Direct

Mr. Colin Burgon: What assessment he has made of the performance of NHS Direct. [72375]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): In March last year, we launched NHS Direct pilot schemes in Newcastle, Preston and Milton Keynes. An independent survey has shown that 97 per cent. of the callers surveyed were satisfied with the service they received from the three pilot schemes, which shows that NHS Direct is a great success. That is why we are extending that 24-hour, nurse-led helpline to cover more than 40 per cent. of the country by Easter. That coverage will include West Yorkshire NHS Direct, covering my hon. Friend's constituency. NHS Direct will be extended to cover 60 per cent. of the country by the beginning of December.

Mr. Burgon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. As he said, the NHS Direct initiative will be launched in West Yorkshire on 7 April and will cover some 2 million people. Does he share my hope that in my city of Leeds, the new initiative will help to reduce the number of admissions to accident and emergency units, which currently run at 12 per cent. above the national average?
Further to a conversation I had a with a nurse when I was in hospital the other week, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the new scheme will be given the maximum possible publicity campaign, so that the people of West Yorkshire will be aware of the Government's excellent initiative?

Mr. Dobson: The object of NHS Direct is to provide a better 24-hour service to people. In some cases, people will be referred instantly to an accident and emergency department; in other cases, they will receive advice, help or reassurance. The object is to provide anyone who rings the service with the assistance that they need. That is the crucial point. One of the few complaints revealed by the survey of the three pilot schemes was that they were not receiving enough publicity. Therefore, I shall do my best to ensure that as each new NHS Direct scheme comes into operation in different parts of the country, it gets the publicity that it clearly deserves.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Why, when the Secretary of State delivered a statement about NHS Direct only a month ago, did he make no mention of his plans to consider replacing all contact with the family doctor and diverting people instead through a remote national call centre? That is what he told the newspapers on Sunday. He must have known of the proposal in Northumberland when he made his statement. Why did he not have the honesty to tell the House that he was looking to move NHS Direct into a whole new area?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman was present on 2 February when I announced the proposal to extend NHS Direct to 40 per cent. of the country by Easter and to 60 per cent. of the country by December. If he checks Hansard, he will note that I drew attention to the proposal advanced by local doctors from around the Newcastle centre in Northumberland to go ahead with the scheme, under which people would ring NHS Direct first rather than go straight to their doctors. That was part of the statement that the hon. Gentleman may recall he welcomed.

Mr. Duncan: I have Hansard here. The Secretary of State implied that the proposal was for only out-of-hours

calls. I welcome a central number—that is what I called for. It may be only a trial, but the subject requires a proper debate. It now appears that the right hon. Gentleman is not talking about only out-of-hours calls. If patients cannot call their own doctors but must go through a national centre, it becomes "NHS Indirect". Will he confirm that the Government are against centralisation and that he favours maintaining close local contact between patients and their family doctors?

Mr. Dobson: All that I can say—if it is not out of order, Madam Speaker—is that it seems rather empty-headed to have listened to a statement about a 24-hour helpline and concluded that its extension would not cover a 24-hour period. That is what it will do. I emphasise that I did not provoke or encourage the scheme in Northumberland: the proposal came from the Northumbria ambulance service, the local health information service and Northern Doctors Urgent Care—a GP co-operative which provides services in that area. Those bodies want to go ahead and pilot the scheme and, if it works, I have no doubt that other doctors and people elsewhere in the country will want to introduce similar schemes. We are conducting a pilot scheme to see whether the proposal will work, but it will not prevent people in Northumberland from ringing their own doctors.

Oral Answers to Questions — Fuel Poverty

Mr. Alan Simpson: What suggestions he has received about the role of primary care groups in addressing the health consequences of fuel poverty. [72377]

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): One of the three key tasks for primary care groups will be the improvement of the health of their local population, and we attach great importance to that role. Fuel poverty can contribute to increased risk of heart attack, stroke and respiratory conditions such as flu, pneumonia and bronchitis. An interdepartmental group reviewing all Government policy on fuel poverty identified primary care groups as a potential way of reaching households in need of help with that problem. Work is in hand to explore that possibility further.

Mr. Simpson: Will the Minister ask the interdepartmental group to pay particular attention to work being done on warm homes programmes in at least two areas? First, in Cornwall, considerable work is being done to tackle child asthma and, secondly, in Birmingham, a collaboration with the local authority allowed home insulation to be offered on prescription. Will my right hon. Friend consider the lessons to be learned from such initiatives and seek to extend them where possible so that we can ask primary care groups to tackle the causes of ill health as well as its consequences and costs?

Ms Jowell: I am delighted to take on board my hon. Friend's suggestions for good practice and to reaffirm the Government's commitment to tackle the root causes of ill health by working across Government and, in doing so, to tackle inequality in health, which blights our society.

Mr. Archie Norman: Is the Secretary of State aware that the right hon. Member for


Darlington (Mr. Milburn), when he was a Health Minister and before he became Chief Secretary to the Treasury, reassured Conservative Members that there would shortly be an announcement on the next round of hospital private finance initiatives, including the consideration of a case in my constituency relating to West Kent and East Sussex—

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I must have called the hon. Gentleman on the wrong question. This question concerns the health consequences of fuel poverty. I call the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Mr. Eric Forth: What is fuel poverty compared with, for example, food poverty or clothing poverty?

Ms Jowell: Fuel poverty is measured as the need to spend over 10 per cent. of one's weekly income on keeping warm.

Mr. David Kidney: The question demonstrates one of the many demands on the boards of the new primary care groups at this stage. If the Stafford primary care group is anything to go by, the management structures are certainly as lean as the Government would like them to be. Will the Minister assure the House that the new boards will have adequate resources and training so that they have the expertise as well as the time, which is very important, to be able to deal with conflicting demands at this important time in their establishment?

Ms Jowell: We are determined that the role of primary care groups will not be only to deliver primary care to local people, but to act as a major force in meeting the Government's targets for broader health improvement and reducing preventable deaths. We shall certainly work with primary care groups so that they are clear not only that they are in the business of ensuring that people receive treatment for ill health, but that they are a force for health improvement.

Dr. Peter Brand: I am sure that the Minister recognises the importance of delivering the wider public health agenda and the role of primary care groups in that aim. Does she agree that local authority services are an integral part of the delivery of the wider public health agenda? Would not it be sensible to integrate, perhaps as pilot studies, a number of health and local authority services so that we can find out whether the proposals can go further? A coterminous area such as my own, an island, would welcome such an initiative.

Ms Jowell: We certainly recognise the importance of close partnership between health and local authorities in tackling health inequality and improving health. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the many steps that the Government have taken to reduce the obstructive and artificial boundaries between health and local authorities. The Health Bill will set out a new framework, including a duty of partnership between health and local authorities, so that the people of a given area no longer have to grapple with the dreadful bureaucracy that results from a single need being met sometimes by services from the local authority, and sometimes by health authority

services. Health improvement is also about making sure that we achieve closer integration of the working of health and local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — Hospital Trusts

Mr. David Ruffley: What representations he has received regarding levels of funding for NHS hospital trusts. [72378]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): The Department, through the NHS Executive and its regional offices, is in day-to-day contact with NHS trusts and health authorities in their role of managing the national health service. Representations are made during those contacts, including by Members of Parliament, through formal channels such as parliamentary questions.

Mr. Ruffley: Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents who use the West Suffolk Hospitals NHS trust believe that the Government's funding policy discriminates against trusts in rural areas, such as their's, compared with urban areas? In that respect, may I draw the Minister's attention to today's report of an inquiry into the East Anglian Ambulance NHS trust, the performance of which is giving rise to great concern among many people in Suffolk? I am aware that the Secretary of State has taken a personal interest in the report. Given that meeting the goals in that document relies on increased funding, will the Minister give an undertaking to welcome a delegation of Suffolk Members of Parliament so that they may lobby for fairer health funding for Suffolk?

Mr. Hutton: I shall say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, we will not accept any lectures from him and his hon. Friends about national health service funding. His tirade completely omitted any reference either to the 5.5 per cent. cash increase in Suffolk health authority's funding, or to next year's real-terms increase of more than £11 million for Suffolk health authority. I am rather surprised that he managed to let those figures slip through his fingers.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman may not be aware of it, but we have already made an adjustment to the funding formula to allow additional resources to be made available to rural ambulance services.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the very generous funding allocated to the NHS by this Government is spent wisely? Will he look at the report into the East Anglian Ambulance NHS trust, which points to deep-seated management problems, many of which I have been drawing attention to for many years? I hope that he agrees that we should concentrate on the way in which such resources are spent.

Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I very strongly agree with what she says. It might help the debate and the clarity of the issues if Conservative Members were prepared to address the reality rather than criticise the Government's record on funding. In 1996–97, the total of NHS trust and health authority deficits was nearly £460 million. By the last quarter of 1998–99, we had managed to reduce that to £80 million. That is the bottom line.

Mr. Philip Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that most NHS acute


trusts will this year receive part of their funding in the form of a performance bonus, if they meet the Secretary of State's headline waiting list targets by 31 March? Will the Minister acknowledge that few, if any, hospital trusts can afford to lose that bonus? Does not that amount to a clear invitation to NHS trusts to do the Secretary of State's dirty work for him, letting out-patient waiting lists double in order to deliver on his political target for headline waiting lists?

Mr. Hutton: No, I do not accept that criticism—any part of it, or any word of it. If the hon. Gentleman were able to look at the performance of the NHS over the past few months, especially over the difficult winter period, I am sure that he would join me in congratulating the staff on their excellent work. He may well want to consider the very interesting figures on the reduction in waiting lists.

Oral Answers to Questions — A and E Departments

Mr. Phil Sawford: How many accident and emergency departments will receive funds for improvements this year; and if he will make a statement. [72379]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Seventy-nine accident and emergency departments in all parts of the country will be upgraded in the coming year with money from the NHS modernisation fund. That is a third of all A and E departments in England. It will mean better and quicker services for patients, and better and safer working conditions for staff. That extra investment from the modernisation fund augments the upgrading that is already being funded as part of the general increase in capital for the NHS which this Government have introduced.

Mr. Sawford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and welcome his massive investment of funds in our national health service. However, is he aware that many NHS trusts, including Kettering general hospital in my constituency, have already modernised their accident and emergency units and fear that, as a result, they may lose out on Government funding? Is it his intention that all future modernisation funding will be earmarked for specific purposes, or will there be some discretionary funding for local projects identified as meeting local needs?

Mr. Dobson: The straight answer is that there will be a mixture. Some of the extra capital funds will be entirely at the discretion of the local trust; some of the money that comes from the ordinary allocation of funds will have some priorities given to it by me; and some of it, from the modernisation fund, will be specifically laid down from the centre.
We believe that it was right and proper, for instance, to try to bring all accident and emergency departments up to the standard that prevails in Kettering, because we believe that a good standard should apply everywhere. When that has been done, additional funds will go elsewhere.
However, I have said that the national health service management, with the extra capital that it is getting this year, must give priority to replacing unreliable equipment that goes on the blink and breaks down. That is very bad for patients. One of the most frustrating aspects of

working in the national health service is to have to work with the clapped-out old equipment on which the previous Government spent no money over the past 19 years.

Mr. Simon Hughes: When will there be enough money for our accident and emergency and other hospital departments to ensure—and to employ the necessary staff—that we reduce the number of people who have seen their consultants and are waiting to get into hospital to below the level that the Government inherited; to reduce the number of those waiting to see their consultants—which is 200,000 more than when the Government came to office—below the number that they inherited; and to ensure that our A and E departments treat the recommended number of 100,000 a year, not 150,000 a year, which is the number of people expected to go through the doors of St. Thomas's hospital when Guy's hospital closes later this year, thanks to the right hon. Gentleman's decision?

Mr. Dobson: Just in case the hon. Gentleman causes any more Liberal hairs to rise, Guy's hospital is not going to close. The A and E department will close because, in the opinion of the people whom we have consulted—who know more about accidents and emergencies than even the Liberal party—the alternative arrangements that we are making, as recommended by Sir Leslie Turnberg in his report, will be satisfactory. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and should have said if he is prepared to be straightforward about this matter, I have said that we shall keep a very close eye on that.
We must recruit more staff, and we are doing so; we must improve equipment; we must make layouts safer; and we must install closed circuit television to stop the yobbos beating up nurses. Indeed, we are doing all those things, but the management must also improve in many places.
We have insisted on getting admissions wards into every district general hospital. When we took over, almost half the district general hospitals in this country had no admissions ward to back up the accident and emergency department; now, only 20 do not have one.

Mr. Dennis Turner: As my right hon. Friend knows, one beneficiary of the improvement programme is New Cross hospital in Wolverhampton. At the cost of making him blush, may I tell him that the improvements to and upgrading of our A and E department and the provision of an extra 22 beds are most welcome? Can he confirm that that is further evidence that Labour is keeping its promises? I say on behalf of Wolverhampton, thank you very much.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend, with his mastery of understatement, only repeats what many doctors and nurses told me in his presence last time I was in Wolverhampton.
One thing that we are doing with the extra money for modernising A and E departments is to put an extra £600,000 into modernising that department at Whipps Cross hospital in east London, and we shall sort out its management as well. That hospital needs a better A and


E department, and it needs to be better run than it is at present if we are to avoid the scandalous things that happened there this winter.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is the Secretary of State aware that, when the Prime Minister was grinning on the steps of Basingstoke hospital while announcing the proposed investment in A and E facilities, one of my constituents, just 20 miles down the road at Yateley in Hampshire, was suffering from a lack of Government funding? That constituent had an operation in 1995 at a specialist London hospital outside his area, followed by three check-ups, but has now been denied a further appointment there. He has been told by the local health authority that, in common with many others, it is experiencing severe financial difficulties. It states:
We are desperately trying to ensure that we continue to provide the best quality care for all our residents but, regrettably, do not have the financial resources to allow for freedom of choice for individuals.
It went on to say that, unless more taxpayers' money was made available, it would not be able to deliver the service.
Is not the truth that the Secretary of State castigated the Conservatives when he was sitting on the Opposition Benches, but has failed to deliver patient care in government?

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman sends me the details of that case, I shall look into it. From bitter experience at the Dispatch Box since I have had this job, I do not give full credence to what Tory Members read out. However, what he says may be correct.
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was mobbed by delighted hospital staff, he was at Basingstoke hospital to mark the effort to bring its A and E department at Basingstoke up to the sort of level that we need for the next century, including the introduction of an X-ray machine specifically for that department, which will be better for the patients and speed up the process altogether. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might just have welcomed that, but of course he cannot really welcome it without a touch of hypocrisy because the shadow Chancellor says that we are spending too much on the health service.

Audrey Wise: In welcoming the announcement, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that although many A and E patients are children, many A and E departments make no special provision for them? Will my right hon. Friend check on the position of the 79 A and E departments and ensure that the modest changes that are necessary properly to receive and reassure children are put in place as part of the upgrading?

Mr. Dobson: That is certainly the case; my hon. Friend makes a valuable point. It would be wholly reasonable for me to add that one of the changes in Basingstoke is to provide a specific area for children in the A and E department, just as the £882,000 that we are giving to the Central Manchester trust will create separate children's A and E areas in the central Manchester hospitals.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State will be aware that many A and E departments are used as drop-in centres, preventing the staff from doing

their main work. Is there any further development in the creation of specialist trauma centres to deal with the most serious accidents, which was part of the earlier policy?

Mr. Dobson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is almost a theological dispute among trauma experts about whether we should have trauma centres or A and E departments as we have at present, and some places are moving more towards trauma departments than others. I have some sympathy with people who use their local A and E departments as a drop-in centre if they are feeling off colour. That has certainly been a characteristic of the major inner-city teaching hospitals of all our great cities.
Although that use poses burdens, I believe that the national health service should provide what local people clearly want of their hospitals. In quite a few areas, GPs are used to provide that service as part of the accident and emergency unit. If that suits the needs of local people—usually people from a deprived area around one of the old teaching hospitals—that is probably as good a use of NHS funds as any.

Oral Answers to Questions — Health Care (Ageism)

Dr. Vincent Cable: What steps he is taking to ensure that age is not used as a criterion for allocating health care. [72380]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): The fundamental principle of the national health service is to provide services for everybody on the basis of clinical need. We are putting in place a number of measures that should improve fair access to services, including national service frameworks, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, local clinical governance and a new performance assessment framework. We have made it clear that access to NHS services should be based on clinical need alone.
We are taking a number of steps specifically to improve the health of older people. For example, this year for the first time all people over 75 years old have been targeted for influenza vaccination.

Dr. Cable: I thank the Minister for his positive reply. Is he aware that, from the serious research that has been undertaken in the NHS on specialisms such as cardiac rehabilitation and kidney dialysis, there is hard evidence that many NHS trusts are discriminating on the basis of age? They are, in effect, rationing health care on the basis of age. Does the Minister agree, confirming his previous reply, that that is fundamentally wrong? Will he undertake to carry out a more far-reaching review of specialisms in the NHS to ensure that age discrimination does not occur?

Mr. Hutton: I repeat what I said in my previous answer about the emphasis we place on clinical need: that is the determinant and should govern what treatment a person receives. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the initiatives that we are taking. I draw his attention in particular to the proposed new national service framework for older people, which we hope will help to drive up quality and standards of care for older people.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Although I welcome the Minister's comments, does he realise that


they will ring pretty hollow in the west midlands, especially in Lichfield and Burntwood? He will be aware, because I have written to him, of an elderly lady in my constituency who has been waiting for more than a year to have a metal plate removed from her shoulder. Given that the waiting lists in the west midlands are the longest in England and Wales, does he find it amazing, as I do, that none of his hon. Friends has risen to point that out? What can he do to ensure that waiting lists in Lichfield and Burntwood for this type of operation for the elderly, and for younger people, are not even longer than those in the west midlands generally because of a crazy rule that has been introduced since the Government were elected? People have to wait three times as long to go to the Good Hope hospital in Sutton Coldfield if they happen to live in Lichfield and Burntwood. If they live in Sutton Coldfield, they can get into that hospital in a third of the time, regardless of their clinical position.

Mr. Hutton: I am afraid that that was one of those questions that started with a point, but I am not sure where it ended up. I do not think that the beginning and the end were connected. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that waiting lists have come down by a further 14,000 in January. I hope that he welcomes that excellent news. I remind him that we are taking initiatives—I should be grateful to know whether he supports them—to try to ensure that we improve the range and quality of health services for older people. They make up a significant group of people who use the NHS, and we want to make sure for them, and for others, that the NHS is a first-class service.

Oral Answers to Questions — Nicotine Replacement Therapy

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What action he is taking to promote the spread of nicotine replacement therapy in health action zones. [72382]

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): Up to £60 million will be available over the next three years, initially in health action zones, to develop smoking cessation services. Part of those funds will provide for the distribution of one week's nicotine replacement therapy free of charge to those smokers least able to afford it.

Dr. Starkey: I welcome the Minister's response in relation to health action zones. May I remind her that the south-east has not a single health action zone, because the region is relatively affluent? However, there are pockets of deprivation, some of which are in my constituency—one of them has a smoking cessation programme. Will she consider extending the week's free nicotine replacement therapy to people on benefit in projects such as the one at Netherfield in my constituency?

Ms Jowell: It is intended that, following assessment of the effectiveness of smoking cessation services in health action zones after the first year, there will be further cessation services and free nicotine replacement therapy in the subsequent two years. This is intended to be a national programme.
It is important to link the scheme with its original purpose. We as a Government have committed ourselves to improving the health of the worst-off at a faster rate than the rate of improvement in the health of the

population as a whole. More poor people than those who are better off die prematurely of cancer and heart disease, and many of those early deaths are due to smoking. That is why our providing free nicotine replacement and tackling the problem of smoking with smoking cessation services is so important to our broader aim of tackling health inequality.

Sir Peter Emery: May I declare a non-financial interest as chairman of the National Asthma Campaign?
Has the Minister seen reports of research done at Oxford, showing that heart and lung disease are now major killers, and that the biggest cause of such deaths is smoking? Will she ensure that the money spent on nicotine replacement therapy is not misused or used ineffectively, in view of a major campaign by the cigarette companies, which are trying to suggest that tax on cigarettes should not be increased in the Budget? It ought to be increased, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that comes about.

Ms Jowell: As the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, tax on cigarettes is a matter for the Chancellor. We may well hear more about it next week.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's broader point, we are determined to ensure that each of the measures set out in "Smoking Kills", the tobacco White Paper, is implemented and assessed in relation to its effectiveness. We must also ensure that the money invested is invested in saving lives from smoking, and tackling the inequality in health that it causes.

Oral Answers to Questions — Private Finance Initiative

Mr. Dennis Canavan: How many PFI projects have been approved in the national health service. [72383]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The private finance initiative plays an important role in modernising the national health service and contributing to the biggest new hospital building programme in the history of the service.
The final decision to proceed with a major capital development in the NHS is made on the basis of an approved full business case. To date, in the NHS in England, 10 major PFI hospital schemes have been given full business case approval, and construction work has now started. In addition, a further 15 major schemes are being developed, and could be given approval as PFI projects subject to satisfactory full business cases being produced and approved.

Mr. Canavan: May we have an assurance that the national health service in England will not follow the bad example of the notorious PFI deal in Scotland, whereby three Edinburgh hospital buildings on associated land were handed over to a private consortium that stands to make up to £200 million profit by developing the land for housing, and will also receive £30 million a year of public money for 30 years to build a new hospital that will never become public property? The shady deal will be financed partly by cutting the number of beds, cutting the number


of nurses and cutting the number of doctors. Is that not conclusive proof that the PFI is a disaster for our national health service?

Mr. Denham: No. My hon. Friend made a number of points; let me deal with the important ones.
The PFI does not lead to a reduction in the number of beds. The number of beds required in the local health service is identified at the outset, whether a hospital is to be built with public sector funds or through the private finance initiative. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced and put in hand a national beds inquiry to ensure that the number of beds that is provided reflects local and national priorities properly.
As for the financing of the deal, open market value is obtained for any surplus NHS land that is included in a PFI deal. A PFI deal will go ahead only if it is affordable for the NHS and represents value for money.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Does the Minister agree that, ever since the foundation of the NHS, its effectiveness under Governments of both political parties, has been undermined by the fact that it has tried to deliver modern health care with inadequate capital investment? That is largely the result of the health service being trapped in a public sector capital model. Therefore, does he agree that the best option for the health service capital programme is a partnership between the public and private sectors to ensure that clinical staff who are employed by the NHS have the most up-to-date capital resources at their disposal?

Mr. Denham: The capital programme that is being developed by the Government includes a mixture of PFI arrangements and traditional public sector capital investment. That is absolutely right. There is a big difference between the present Administration and the previous one. They made a complete mess of the private finance initiative—numerous schemes were developed, none of which has ever begun construction. It was the present Administration who sorted it out and got the priorities right. We will build on that in due course with clear guidance on contracts to be used and the approach to be taken. We are using PFI not as a bit of political rhetoric, but to deliver new hospitals and better conditions for NHS staff and patients.

Jane Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend aware of the situation in my constituency, where Royal Berkshire hospital failed in its PFI initiative, but has now received Treasury funding to provide the new hospital consolidation that is greatly needed? Is he further aware of the scandalous situation with regard to Berkshire health authority? It threatened savage cuts to health services in my constituency, but they were found not to be necessary by a recent National Audit Office investigation and, following a campaign by my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), have been halted.

Mr. Denham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the close interest that she and her colleagues took in the proposals in Berkshire. I understand that proposals that were initially made last autumn have been substantially varied. She has drawn the House's attention to the

flexibility that underlies the Government's approach to capital investment, with the right vehicle for particular projects being chosen.

Mr. Archie Norman: When is the long-awaited announcement on the next round of hospital PFIs likely to be made?

Mr. Denham: Shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — Dental Treatment

Mrs. Ann Cryer: What proportion of dental treatment was carried out within the NHS in the last year for which figures are available. [72384]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham: ): The number of courses of NHS dental treatments is rising. In the first 10 months of the financial year, courses of treatment for adults rose by 4.2 per cent. and courses of treatment for children, excluding basic treatments that are included in the capitation fee, rose by 2 per cent. compared with the same period in previous years. Unfortunately, we do not have the figures for the amount of private treatment, so I cannot answer the question in full.

Mrs. Cryer: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful reply—things seem to be improving. I am aware of the 18 years of neglect; it is an uphill struggle. However, would he care to comment on a letter that I have received from a constituent in Ilkley, who tells me that, after being the patient of a dentist for 30 years, he has just been told that he can no longer have NHS treatment from the dentist and that, in future, it will cost him £96 for inspection and a polish?
I telephoned Airedale community health council to find out what evidence it had on what was going on. It tells me that its last survey, which was held in 1996, demonstrated that only 65 per cent. of the adult population could hope to obtain treatment on the NHS. The community health council also tells me that the situation does not seem to be improving, and that it is receiving more complaints. Consequently, in the next few months, it will probably conduct another survey.

Mr. Denham: Individual dentists may—as in the situation described by my hon. Friend—choose no longer to offer national health service treatment. My understanding of the situation in Keighley—my geography is not good enough to know whether it would apply also to my hon. Friend's constituent in Ilkley—is that some dental practices are still accepting national health service patients. Bradford health authority would be able to advise on the matter. The Administration are investing in measures to ensure that national health service registration and treatment are available. The investing in dentistry initiative, in particular, should enable about 600,000 additional patients to receive national health service dental treatment.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that in my constituency, the previous Government received much, probably justified criticism because so many dentists decided to opt out of the NHS. Labour politicians, both locally and nationally,


said that they would solve the problem if they were elected. Will he tell my constituents why the situation, which was improving up until the general election, is starting again to decline—despite Labour's assurance that it would solve the problem?

Mr. Denham: If there is a developing problem in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, it certainly would be open to the health authority to make bids under the investing in dentistry scheme and to start pilots in personal dental services. I do not know—although I shall certainly look into the matter—whether such bids were made or, if they were made, whether they were successful. Initiatives have been taken by the Government which will enable proposals to be made to deal with problems in areas of great difficulty. I shall certainly investigate the case of South Dorset to see whether that effort was made, and whether full advantage has been taken of the Government's new initiatives.

Oral Answers to Questions — Unit Modernisation

Mr. Patrick Hall: What proposals he has for the modernisation of intensive care and high-dependency units in the current year. [72385]

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): A modern health service needs modern intensive care and high-dependency care services. We have already, since the new year, invested almost £10 million to increase capacity. We are reviewing plans for next winter and the longer term, including the need for national standards.

Mr. Hall: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. May I also thank the Secretary of State for recently visiting Bedford, where he thanked national health service staff for their hard work and dedication. That message went down very well and was appreciated in the area—[Interruption.] Conservative Members react to that statement, but they should realise that the British people do appreciate the commitment to the health service shown by the Secretary of State and the Government. One group of people whom the Secretary of State met at Bedford hospital were the team at the hospital's intensive care unit. Does the Minister also have a message for that intensive care unit team, as they consider necessary improvements in the unit's capacity and conditions?

Ms Jowell: Bedfordshire health authority is considering the case for providing more intensive care beds. Later this year, we expect to receive a report from the Audit Commission, which will provide national guidance in NHS planning on both the quality of intensive care services and the number of intensive care beds. The previous Government ploughed on in chaos in dealing with intensive care provision, without the faintest idea of how many intensive care beds were available. We have put that right.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the right hon. Lady agree that few high-dependency units fulfil a more critical function than burns units and heart-lung transplant units, as exemplified by Mount Vernon hospital and Harefield hospital in my constituency? Therefore, can the right hon. Lady put my constituents and those for many around about out of their

misery by announcing that both those units will receive the modernisation that they rightly deserve, and which would be much more cost-effective than moving the facilities elsewhere?

Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there needs to be a proper assessment of the level of care that individual intensive care units are capable of providing. He will be aware that the proposals for the two specific hospitals he mentioned are currently being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions — Nurse Recruitment Hotline

Judy Mallaber: How many nurses have phoned the nurse recruitment hotline. [72386]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): At 11 am today, the number of inquiries to the national nursing recruitment campaign was 41,398. More than 3,300 of those were from qualified nurses wanting to return to nursing.

Judy Mallaber: On 2 February, I tabled a question arising from a case in my constituency about the extent to which inflexible working hours deter qualified nurses from taking up NHS employment. Will my right hon. Friend publish the results of the survey referred to in the answer to that question? Has he seen the recent industrial tribunal case in which nurses successfully challenged new shift patterns which meant that they could no longer look after their children? Will my right hon. Friend encourage health trusts to provide flexibility so that qualified nurses can combine domestic and work responsibilities? Will he encourage NHS Direct to approach qualified nurses who had to retire on health grounds, perhaps because of back injuries, so that they can return to work on something that they will be able to do?

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend has raised various points. Yes, we will publish the survey to which she referred. I am past the stage of encouraging trusts to offer family-friendly policies, and I have got round to telling some of them to do so because they are so slow. We want to ensure that we get rid of the rigid grading system that nurses in particular find so offensive. We want all staff to be offered family-friendly policies and shift rotas that suit the needs of their families. Also, we want to make working in the NHS safe. We are doing a lot within the health service to bring that about, and I am co-operating with the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary towards that end. All that, combined with the pay increases, will, I hope, mean that we can recruit all the nurses we need, including some of the 140,000 qualified nurses no longer working in the health service.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I welcome the number of inquiries to the nurse recruitment hotline, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recent


statement on nurses' pay has, no doubt, had a part to play in that? What will be important is the number of those inquiries that turn into nurses who are recruited for training or trained nurses who return to work. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that nurses who have stayed with the health service are slightly miffed, to say the least, that their percentage pay increase does not reflect that commitment? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that part and parcel of the problem of nurse recruitment is one of nurse retention?

Mr. Dobson: There has been a major problem of nurse retention. If we had been retaining nurses over the past 18 or 19 years, we would not have the problem of having to get nurses back again. The more long-standing nurses did not get as big a pay increase as those being recruited. However, the Royal College of Nursing said constantly that the pay of newly qualified nurses starting in the health service was a national disgrace. Clearly, the pay review body agreed and gave such nurses a 12 per cent. increase. Other people on that grade who have been working in the NHS for some time received 8 per cent. The rest of the nurses and midwives received a 4.7 per cent. increase which, by April, will be about double the rate of inflation. It is a long time since nurses received a pay increase as generous as that.

Oral Answers to Questions — Doctor Training

Mr. Tony McWalter: What provision he is making to train increased numbers of doctors; and what progress is being made in inaugurating new medical schools. [72388]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The Government announced on 22 July 1998 that intake to medical schools in the United Kingdom would be increased to about 6,000 places by 2005—an increase of about 20 per cent. In England, the increase is being co-ordinated by a joint implementation group, which has invited universities to submit proposals for the allocation of additional places by 12 March. Proposals will be considered by the group and decisions will be announced later in the year. Numbers in postgraduate training are also growing to meet future requirements for general practitioners and consultants.

Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and I welcome the Government's commitments. Is my hon. Friend aware that many district general hospitals need new doctors and trainee staff to function properly? If the new doctors being trained are consolidated in existing centres of excellence, many district general hospitals will not have access to new doctor trainees because of the Calman report's recommendations. I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that hospitals throughout the country, and particularly in Hemel Hempstead, have the opportunity of having trainee doctors associated with medical schools so that they can take full advantage of their expertise.

Mr. Denham: Doctors in specialist training and, to a lesser extent, medical students benefit from the experience of a range of provision, including large teaching centres, smaller acute trusts and community care trusts. How that experience is provided is for local decision.

Uganda

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, I shall make a statement on the recent kidnappings in Uganda.
The events occurred in a remote part of Uganda and we do not yet have official corroboration of the most recent developments. We shall make further public statements as we receive confirmation, but the House will wish to hear what is known so far.
Yesterday morning 14 tourists, including six British nationals, were abducted from Bwindi Impenetrable national park in the Kisoro district of Uganda. In addition to the British nationals, those abducted included United States, New Zealand, Canadian, Australian and Swiss nationals. Several others who were present at the time of the attack, including one British citizen, managed to avoid capture. Those who did so returned to Kampala last night, where they were all debriefed and offered support by the British high commission.
As soon as we learned of the abductions, we were in immediate touch with the Ugandan authorities. Our high commissioner told the Ugandan Foreign Minister that we expected every effort to be made to achieve the rapid and safe return of those abducted. He made it clear that there should be no intervention that might put lives at risk. The Foreign Minister gave us that assurance and undertook to keep us fully informed. Two members of the high commission travelled to the area to liaise with the local authorities.
This morning we received reports that some of the hostages had been killed, but that others had been rescued. I regret to inform the House that our present information is that four of the six British nationals were among those who were killed. The whole House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathies to their relatives and families.
We are seeking urgent clarification from the Ugandan authorities of the circumstances in which the deaths took place. It is not yet clear whether the Ugandan military intervened directly, but if that is confirmed we shall want an immediate explanation of how that happened despite the assurances that we were given yesterday.
From our interviews with those who escaped we believe that the abductors were a rebel group opposed to the present Government of Rwanda, and operating from over the border in the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is the first such incident in Uganda, although last August the same rebel group seized a number of tourists, including one British dual national, who had strayed over the border into the Democratic Republic.
Our travel advice for Uganda was last updated on 19 February. It warned:
Rebels are periodically active in Uganda/Rwanda/Congo border areas around Kisoro district. Although the situation is currently peaceful, it can change quickly.
Yesterday, in the light of the kidnaps, we revised our travel advice to warn against all travel to those border areas.
The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), has just returned from an extended trip to nine countries in the region, including

Uganda and the other five countries involved in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In each of them he pressed the need for a negotiated settlement and underlined the willingness of the United Kingdom to do all that we can, both in the European Union and in the Security Council, to support such negotiations.
This latest tragedy demonstrates the distressing human cost of the continuing conflict and the urgent need for a settlement.

Mr. Michael Howard: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that statement. The whole House will be deeply shocked by yet another unprovoked attack on British tourists. Our thoughts and sympathies go to their families, the families of the other tourists who died and the families of those Ugandans who were trying to protect them and whose duty it was to try to release them. They live constantly in the shadow of the conflict engulfing the Great Lakes region.
When was our high commissioner to Uganda made aware of the kidnapping? We are all obviously pleased to hear of the release of the French and some of the Australian hostages. Can the Foreign Secretary shed any light on how the French authorities were able to negotiate their release? Can he confirm that, in addition to the attack to which he referred, last week seven people were killed travelling in a road convoy between Goma, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Rutshuru, on the Ugandan border? If so, what consideration was given to updating the travel advice for the region in the light of that attack? When may we expect a statement from the Minister of State on the prospects for peace in the region?

Mr. Cook: My understanding is that the high commission in Kampala heard of the events yesterday, and debriefed yesterday those who had returned from the area. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not quite right to suggest that the French authorities negotiated a release of their citizens. Our understanding is that the two were not among those who were abducted from the camp. We believe that one of them had an asthma attack at the time of the abduction, and that may have influenced who was selected for kidnapping. I stress that our information is not confirmed and that there is no doubt much yet to be learned about what happened both yesterday and this morning.
I cannot confirm the precise details of the event in the Congo to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers, but there are killings there daily, and our travel advice is explicit and clear: we warn firmly against any travel to the Congo. There had been no such event in Uganda, however. We gave a clear warning in our travel advice about the dangers of the Kisoro district, but we had not felt obliged to warn against all travel to it. We have now done so.
I join in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's condolences both to the families and to those others whose lives have been put at risk. I agree absolutely about the importance of tackling at source the root problem of the instability and insecurity in the Democratic Republic of Congo. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has already issued a press notice following his visit, and I am sure that he will look for an early opportunity to brief the House or the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prime focus of our concern and


attention must be the victims of the tragedy? Events are still unclear, but will he confirm that those Hutu rebels operating from the Democratic Republic of Congo are indeed the remnants of a number who took part in the genocide in Rwanda in 1994? They are a ferocious group, so it may have been difficult to negotiate with them. Will my right hon. Friend further confirm that Uganda, after its troubled past, is a relatively stable and friendly Commonwealth country and deserves our fullest co-operation in its problems at the border?

Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely on that last point. My hon. Friend the Minister of State discussed the problems of the Great Lakes region when he met President Museveni only last week.
I cannot confirm whether those of the rebel group who were involved in the abduction yesterday were necessarily the same people who were involved in the genocide of 1994. In substance, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is right—many of those who took part in the genocide in 1994 fled to the Congo, and have been there ever since. For the past four years, they have been seeking to destabilise the Government of Rwanda by repeated raids across the border. They are a serious part of the insecurity of the region, and achieving their disarmament must be important for security in the region.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the Foreign Secretary's expressions of sympathy? Although it may be too early to reach final conclusions in the absence of all the information, does he accept that as people more and more seek unusual holidays off the beaten track, the chance of incidents of this kind occurring in future will be much increased? In considering the nature of the travel advice that the Government now make available, would it be right to consider expressing that advice in the most blunt terms, even if that meant causing some offence to otherwise friendly countries? And in the aftermath of this tragedy, may we give some consideration to the role and responsibility of travel companies in these matters?

Mr. Cook: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point. It is important that travel companies do not treat Foreign Office advice as some kind of indemnity against their own responsibility to use their discretion and judgment and to provide frank and clear warnings to those who travel with them. Our duty is to the public, and it is one that we seek to discharge by making sure that advice is as widely available as possible.
One of the issues on which we seek agreement with the travel agencies is on making sure that they disseminate to all their clients up-to-date Foreign Office advice, which is widely available on the internet and websites. We seek to provide frank and candid advice. In the case of Uganda, we did so—I have read it to the House. At the same time, we must be careful that we do not so err on the side of caution that the validity of our advice is discounted by people who may think that we are exaggerating. We must strike a balance between being cautious and being realistic, and our advice on Uganda did that.

Mr. Kerry Pollard: It has been confirmed that one of my constituents, Mark, a 23-year-old, is one

of those who has been killed in this terrible tragedy. I have just spoken to his father, who is devastated by the news. However, he sends his thanks to the Foreign Office for its help throughout the night when the family was kept in touch with events as they developed. The family is looking forward to receiving the body back on Friday, when a proper funeral will take place so they can grieve properly.

Mr. Cook: The whole House will share the distress of my hon. Friend's constituents and will wish him to convey the condolences and sympathy of the House to them. We have tried to maintain contact with the families and relatives. It has been a matter of deep regret to us that we have been unable to obtain confirmation faster, but we have sought to share all we know—at the point where we can be confident of what we know—with relatives, and we will continue to do so.

Mr. William Cash: Will the Secretary of State accept the condolences of the all-party Uganda group following this terrible tragedy? Does he further accept that the all-party group is aware that the Government have taken such steps as possible in the circumstances—vague as they are—to try to find out as much as possible? Does he accept that the all-party group hopes that this matter is resolved as quickly as possible, and that the stability of the region can be achieved as quickly as possible in the interests of people on both sides of the border?

Mr. Cook: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. There are two separate issues here. The first is the present tragedy, on which we are seeking to obtain as much information as possible as quickly as we can, which we will continue to share with relatives and the public. The other is the longer-term issue, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government remain committed to working with the Governments of Uganda and the other countries of the region to try to establish security which could, hopefully, tackle at source such tragedies.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I share my right hon. Friend's sense of outrage and deep sadness over the deaths in Uganda. Will he confirm that where there is an extreme threat to life, the Foreign Office will give firm advice which should be taken, and where there is not such an extreme threat but a risk, the advice will be proportionate to the risk?

Mr. Cook: I can give my hon. Friend exactly that assurance. I believe that the Foreign Office travel advice in this case was absolutely correct. We have updated it since, and we shall continue to do so. It is, of course, only advice. It is for British citizens to decide for themselves whether they accept that advice, but our strong view is that it would be wise for them, like us, to err on the side of caution.

Dr. Julian Lewis: In recent months there have been violent outcomes to kidnappings in Chechnya, Yemen and now in Uganda. Although I agree with the Foreign Secretary that it would have been infinitely preferable if today's case could have been resolved by negotiation, will he confirm that it is unwise to rush to condemn the Governments of these countries


when they think it necessary to try to stand up to terrorist kidnappings by taking firm action if there is a chance of rescuing the hostages? We often took similar firm action when faced with terrorism, although fortunately more successfully on most occasions.

Mr. Cook: I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should not rush to judgment on other Governments, and I am certainly not doing so in this case, because we do not have the facts of what happened this morning in the Kisoro district. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that the situation in the Great Lakes region is different from anything that we encountered.
We are anxious to share our own expertise and experience with Governments who are faced with a situation in which British citizens have been taken hostage. For that reason, as I announced to the House in January, we will be seeking the appointment of a part-time consultant with experience in police negotiations during hostage taking. I am pleased to tell the House that the advertisement for that post will be placed next week.

Peter Bleach

Sir Teddy Taylor: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the conduct of the Home Secretary and of the Metropolitan police in the case of Mr. Peter Bleach, whose trial on a charge that involves a hanging penalty is nearing completion in Calcutta.
Although I do not wish to interfere in any way with the respected Indian courts, there is clear evidence that the Home Secretary, whose presence I greatly welcome, has misinterpreted some evidence that is crucial to the case, and that the Metropolitan police have acted improperly and illegally in producing evidence to the courts in India. The evidence is so specific and so clear that I believe the House has a duty to consider the issues, and to ensure that the courts in India are told the truth.
In a nutshell, Mr. Bleach and several others are accused of conspiring to drop ammunition and weapons in West Bengal in an endeavour to create armed conflict in India. Mr. Bleach has contended throughout that he advised the authorities of the approach made to him to participate in the arms drop and of every step that he took in the organisation of the venture. To that extent, the recording of the contacts between Mr. Bleach and the security and other authorities are crucial.
One vital piece of evidence given to the court by the Government, which I have, is a handwritten report of a meeting between Mr. Bleach and the North Yorkshire police in September 1995. However, the copy of the document that was given to the Indian court, which I also have, has significant parts removed from it at the beginning and the end.
Mr. Bleach believed that the document had been deliberately tampered with and altered, so I took up the issue with the Home Secretary in a letter of 20 April. On 14 May I received a reply from the right hon. Gentleman stating that, having reviewed the whole situation, he had come to the conclusion that it was nothing more than a clerical error by the police.
I was therefore horrified to hear last night that a police officer, Sergeant E1cock, giving evidence in Calcutta on 18 February, which I have in my possession, stated that he had altered the document on the instruction of MI5. Such an alteration requires a PII certificate, but none was sought. It is obvious that the Home Secretary and Sergeant E1cock cannot both be correct. We have a duty to Mr. Bleach to clarify the situation.
To protect himself during the preparations for the arms drop, Mr. Bleach prudently recorded every word said to him on the telephone by Government officials. However, his home and the home of a disabled lady in London were raided, in one case by 10 constables, and all the tapes except one have disappeared. Most worryingly, when the right to carry out such searches was being secured, sections of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989 simply were not adhered to in one case at Bow street magistrates court. Sergeant E1cock not only admitted that, but stated that it was normal practice.
I have abundant evidence of the various endeavours made to prevent the courts in India from knowing of the close contact between Mr. Bleach and British authorities


in this business. It is vital for justice for a British citizen that the facts be clarified and transmitted to the courts in India. Without a debate, and without such clarification, Mr. Bleach will face an Indian court that may not be aware of the facts. That is why I am calling for an emergency debate.

Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully and intently to the hon. Gentleman. I must now give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of reports of escalating amounts of ordnance being rained down on Iraq, have you had any request from either the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence to offer the House of Commons some explanation of the objectives of that bombing and bombing and bombing?

Madam Speaker: I have received no intimation from the Foreign Office or from the Ministry of Defence that any Minister seeks to make a statement on the matter today. Those Ministers on the Government Front Bench will have heard the point raised by the hon. Gentleman today and on various occasions during the past few weeks. No doubt they will note what he has said.

Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 9 December, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), replied to a private notice question in respect of the reported deaths of four hostages in Chechnya. One hostage, Rudi Petschi, was a constituent of mine. The Minister said that we had had no notice of any attempt to rescue the hostages, and would not have advised such an attempt.
Since then, I have put down a series of named-day written questions to the Foreign Office. On 21 January, the Minister confirmed that an Interfax report of 6 December, flagging up a rescue attempt, was received by the British embassy in Moscow and by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London, but was not dealt with until the following Monday, 7 December.
On 25 February, the FCO confirmed that it had passed on the Interfax report to Granger Telecom by 1300 hours on Monday 7 December. That was two days before the Minister came to the Dispatch Box to claim that the FCO had had no notice of a rescue attempt.
Have you had any indication, Madam Speaker, of whether the Foreign Office has carried out an investigation into how that chain of events occurred? Is there likely to be a debate or a further statement from the FCO?

Madam Speaker: I have not heard that there is to be a statement on those matters, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that how Ministers answer questions is a matter for them, not for me.

BILL PRESENTED

HARE COURSING

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, supported by Mr. Colin Pickthall, Mr. Michael J. Foster, Maria Eagle, Mr. Joe Benton, Mr. Gwyn Prosser and Helen Jones, presented a Bill to make hare coursing illegal: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 26 March 1999, and to be printed [Bill 53].

Use of Antibiotics in Farm Animals

Mr. Bill Etherington: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Ministers to lay before Parliament proposals for ending the use in farm animals of antibiotics as growth promoters and for restricting the routine use of antibiotics in such animals for prophylactic purposes.
It will be difficult in only 10 minutes to cover the complications and ramifications of this subject. Almost a year ago, I attended a meeting organised by the agricultural sub-committee of the Council of Europe, which lasted two days and which dealt solely with this matter. I was quite alarmed by some of the things I learned at that conference. It started an interest in the subject which I intend to continue until some progress is made.
The most alarming aspect, and one that eminent scientists are extremely concerned about, is the way in which the resistance to antibiotics of certain infections is becoming stronger and stronger. One scientist said that we are near the point where only the very strongest antibiotics that we have developed are capable of dealing with some of the virulent strains of infection now occurring around the world. His fear is that, if we lose that battle, the consequences will be horrendous.
One of the reasons for the increase in such superbugs—if I may use that term, even though it carries other connotations—is that, many years ago, antibiotics were given out too readily to human beings. I can remember when they were given out to children with colds and sore throats almost as a matter of course. I remember not being pleased when, 30 years ago, I went to the doctor because I was suffering an attack of boils. I asked for antibiotics, but he refused and explained why; I accepted the explanation, but it did not help the pain.
A few words of explanation about the Bill are needed, because there are two distinct threads in it. The main one is that the Bill would help to eliminate the danger of people having too much antibiotic substance within their system. Secondly, an animal welfare aspect is involved.
The animal welfare aspect can be divided into two strands. The first is that more than 15 per cent. of all antibiotics used on animals are used routinely, as a form of growth enhancer—a food additive. That is totally indefensible. In an unguarded moment, a scientist who was in favour of that use candidly admitted to me that the only reason those antibiotics are used is so that an animal can be fattened with less food. In simple terms, it is a commercial matter, motivated by profit.
The second strand is not quite as simple. I can best put it by saying that, when animals are kept in close proximity to one another in inhumane and poor conditions, infection and the spread of infection are rife and always likely to occur spontaneously. So antibiotics are used in much the same way as we would immunise a child against diphtheria. That was never the intention behind antibiotics: going right back to the time of penicillin, antibiotics were meant to deal with an existing infection.
On the animal welfare aspects of the Bill, there can be no argument to justify the so-called food enhancers. That use is merely a commercial operation; ending it would make little difference to the livestock industry in this

country, but it would reduce by 15 per cent. the amount of antibiotics used on animals. The prophylactic argument is more intense, because that use represents more than 35 per cent. of antibiotics that are given to animals, but it could be ended straight away.
Two categories of animal come to mind in that respect. The first is broiler chickens. It is almost a year since I presented a Bill on that subject and I shall not go over the same ground, save to point out that those chickens live in overcrowded conditions where infection is rife. Secondly, pigs are intensively reared, meaning that there are far too many pigs in any given area, often indoors and without proper bedding. All the time, those animals suffer from being given antibiotics as a matter of course, almost as though they were a course of treatment.
Consider that, in this country, 50 per cent. of antibiotics are used by humans and 50 per cent. in animals. We can reduce the 50 per cent. that is used in animals by 50 per cent., making animal use only 25 per cent. of the current total. That would be a significant improvement. The European Union has already banned four antibiotics used for these purposes. While that move is welcome, it does not go far enough because other antibiotics will simply be used instead. I do not wish to frighten people, but I stress that this is an extremely serious problem that may be rectified relatively simply.
I have received support from many groups, including Compassion in World Farming and the Soil Association. I have experienced no outright opposition, although the Pfizer pharmaceuticals company has expressed concern. It recognises that there must be changes in this area, but it does not necessarily want to follow the path that I advocate. I have received supportive phone calls and letters from various people that have greatly encouraged me in my efforts. I am also grateful to hon. Members who have sponsored the Bill.
There is only one black cloud on the horizon, Madam Speaker—and you are certainly no stranger to this problem. I was not very impressed to be told by a journalist that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food opposes my Bill. I expected those concerned to have the common decency at least to telephone me to tell me of their opposition. If I oppose any measure, I try to make my views known to those involved. It is not even about the principles of this place: it is about good manners and decency.
I commend my Bill to the House and hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will support it. I see that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is in the Chamber. He is quite an expert on such matters, and he and I have often chatted about the vitamin B6 issue. His views are progressive and I know that he will treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves. We can do something about this problem, and there is no reason why we should not act now.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I notified my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) of my intention to oppose the Bill today, so I hope that he does not include me in his criticisms. As the House is under time pressure, I shall try to put the alternative argument as quickly as possible.
I must state at the outset that the largest employer in my constituency is Pfizer, the pharmaceuticals company mentioned by my hon. Friend. It is best known for


manufacturing human medicines, but it is also the largest producer of animal health medicines in the world. I stress that I speak today only as a constituency Member of Parliament: I have no declarable interest in the company. It has not asked me to speak and it has not briefed me for this debate—although I shall draw on some material that the company has provided in recent months.
My hon. Friend makes a strong case, but one, I am afraid, that ignores much of the current and emerging evidence. I will argue that the case that antibiotic growth promoters are unsafe is far from conclusive and that their withdrawal would have serious environmental consequences and a significant economic impact.
It is claimed that antibiotic growth promoters are unsafe mainly because of the possible development of resistant strains of microbes that could infect human beings and prove resistant to human antibiotics. Antibiotic growth promoters have no mutagenic capacity: they cannot change the genetic make-up of microbes. Resistant microbes exist in the environment already, usually at a low frequency because they have a selective disadvantage compared with other organisms.
When an animal is treated with antibiotic growth promoters, the other non-resistant organisms are sometimes removed and, as a consequence, the resistant strain is allowed to flourish. However, the strain is resistant only to that type of antibiotic or family of antibiotics, not to all antibiotics; and can flourish only while the strain is in the animal that is being treated with antibiotics that are removing its competitors.
In other words, as long as there is proper control over which antibiotics are used in humans and which are used in animals, there is very little likelihood that human bacteria will develop resistance to human antibiotics as a result of using animal antibiotics to treat animals. In France, a chemical called virginiamycin has been used to treat animals for over 26 years and a related human compound has been used to treat humans for a similar period, and there is no evidence that resistance to the human bacteria has developed in humans.
The truth is that resistance to human bacteria arises from treating human beings with human antibiotics. It does not arise as a result of farmers treating farm animals. The case for a ban on safety grounds is therefore far from clear.
On environmental grounds, I was told by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, in answer to a written question, that a ban on antibiotic growth promoters in the UK, Germany and France alone would increase the output

of nitrates by 78,000 tonnes a year and phosphates by 15,000 tonnes a year. In Sweden, where there is a ban on these products, farmers have had to start adding zinc oxide to feed to deal with the diarrhoea that was previously dealt with by the antibiotics. As a consequence, the Swedes now have a zinc pollution problem and are considering banning zinc oxide, and have no idea about what they will use as a replacement.
Farmers in Sweden have also had to start using therapeutic antibiotics to treat their animals, when previously they would not have had to do so. If potency equivalents are measured, the use of antibiotics has increased as a result of the ban.
On the economic front, the ban would cost farmers in the European Union an additional 2.5 billion ecu a year. It would increase the cost to British consumers by £137 a year each.
For all those reasons, I do not believe that a ban can currently be justified. If we want to err on the side of caution and phase out the products, we should do so only as alternatives become available. Alternatives are being tested and will probably be available in the not-too-distant future. The way forward is not to ban the products but strictly to control the antibiotics used in humans and in animals, to begin more circumspect prescribing of antibiotics in humans, and to increase the research and surveillance carried out.
Unless the balance of evidence changes substantially, there is no justification for a ban that will hurt farmers, consumers and my constituents and add nothing to public safety.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. John Austin, Jackie Ballard, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Mr. Harry Cohen, Dr. Lynne Jones, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Chris Mullin, Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Gwyn Prosser and Angela Smith.

USE OF ANTIBIOTICS IN FARM ANIMALS

Mr. Bill Etherington accordingly presented a Bill to require Ministers to lay before Parliament proposals for ending the use in farm animals of antibiotics as growth promoters and for restricting the routine use of antibiotics in such animals for prophylactic purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 April, and to be printed [Bill 54].

Opposition Day

[6TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Sierra Leone

[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on Sierra Leone, Session 1998–99 (HC 116), and the Report of the Sierra Leone Arms Investigation, Session 1997–98 (HC 1016).]

Madam Speaker: We now come to the main business. I remind the House that the terms of the motion and the amendment before us do not cover the events on which the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House last Wednesday—the leak of the draft report. For that reason, and because the House's settled procedure for examining and reporting on such leaks is now under way, I am prepared to permit only passing reference to those matters. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Michael Howard: I beg to move,
That this House endorses the criticisms made of Ministers in the Second Report of Session 1998–99 (HC 116) of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Sierra Leone and the Report of the Legg Inquiry; deplores the conduct of Ministers which led to such criticism; and calls on the Ministers concerned to accept responsibility for their conduct.
It is almost two years since a military coup in Sierra Leone ousted the democratically elected Government of President Kabbah. We shared the Government's dismay at that event. Indeed, the previous Government had helped to finance the elections which led to President Kabbah's accession. We share too, as will the whole House, the dismay that the current situation in Sierra Leone evokes. Conflict in that country continues. More than 10,000 people are believed to have been killed in the wave of rebel attacks since December alone. Many more have been very seriously injured. Freetown has been left in ruins. What should be one of the richest countries in Africa is one of the poorest and most miserable. The situation has rightly been described as desperate.
The ability of the British Government to influence events in that tragic country may be limited. It is right to pay tribute to those in the diplomatic service and the armed forces, who have done what they can—and are doing what they can—to try to relieve suffering and end the conflict. But, however limited their influence, the Government are accountable to this House for their policies and action. We are here to ensure and enforce that accountability. We cannot do so unless we are told the truth—the whole truth—about the Government's policies and action. When we discover that we have not been told the whole truth, it is our duty to bring to account those responsible for that failure.
One of the ways in which we exercise such accountability is through Select Committees. I pay tribute to the Foreign Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), for its report on Sierra Leone. It is, of course, an all-party Committee; the majority of its members, however, come from the Labour party. Its report has rightly and widely

been described as one of the most scathing of a Department, ever. It is certainly devastating in its criticism of officials. It is also devastating, however, in its criticism of Ministers, and it is that aspect on which I intend to concentrate. In the light of your observations, Madam Speaker, I shall not deal at all with the revelations of last week. I shall focus on the specific criticism of Ministers in the Select Committee report and in the Legg report.
If one listens to what Ministers have said, one could be forgiven for believing that there was no such criticism in either report. The Foreign Secretary said of the Legg report:
I would perfectly happily accept any criticisms of myself in the report, but there are none."—[Official Report, 27 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 28.]
Very, very shortly after the publication of the Select Committee report, the Prime Minister said on the Jimmy Young show:
The criticisms are made of civil servants and not Government Ministers.
He also said that there was nothing new in the report—a claim described as "absolutely absurd" by the Chairman of the Select Committee. One reference in volume I of the Select Committee report seems to offer some succour to the Foreign Secretary. On page LXXXII, we find the following sentence:
As far as Ministers were concerned, there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that they deliberately misled Parliament.
Unfortunately for Ministers, that sentence appears in a paragraph to which the Committee did not agree. It was excised from the report; not even the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) was prepared to vote for it. That attempt to exculpate Ministers comprehensively failed. In fact, both reports contain serious criticism of Ministers. I shall begin with the Select Committee's criticism of the Foreign Secretary's failure to co-operate with it.

Mr. Mike Gapes: May I draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to paragraph 112 of volume I of the report—the postscript? Is he saying that the Committee did not agree to that paragraph before it was published? That paragraph, which contains the words that he is disputing, states:
We commend the resolute support which the British Government is giving to the restoration of democracy and to the alleviation of suffering.
Is not that in the report?

Mr. Howard: I do not know what that has to do with the points that I am making. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, he will understand the criticisms. At paragraph 7 of the report, the Committee records how its work was impeded by the Government's refusal to release to it
firstly telegrams concerning Sierra Leone, and secondly … information which fell within the ambit of the Legg inquiry.
At paragraph 8, the Committee sets out what it describes as further "frustrations" that it encountered. It asked to hear three of the officials involved in the affair; it was allowed to see only two. It was not allowed to see relevant


intelligence reports. Its requests to take evidence in private from the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, or to be briefed by him in private, were also refused. At paragraph 101, the Committee says:
it would be quite wrong and an unacceptable precedent for a Government in the future to be able to argue that any select committee inquiry could be superseded, or perhaps blocked for a considerable period of time, by a whistled-up departmental inquiry.
The Committee recommends
that the Government undertake in future to respect select committees' requirements for information, irrespective of any departmental inquiry on related matters which might have been established.
At paragraph 107, the Committee says:
We greatly regret that we were not given access to intelligence material and that we were refused the opportunity to take evidence from the Director of the SIS.
It notes:
We cannot now say that we have had access to all the sources of information which would have allowed us to come to unequivocal conclusions.
The Committee condemns what it calls the Government's obduracy and, at paragraph 108, it contrasts
the reluctance of the Foreign Secretary
with the helpfulness of other Ministers, including the Defence Secretary. It recommends that the Government reflect, in
any future inquiry like that into Sandline,
as to the merit of what it calls
a more mature attitude towards controlled access for the Foreign Affairs Committee to appropriate intelligence material and to witnesses from the Secret Intelligence Service.
The House will wish to take those observations and recommendations extremely seriously. In relation to the Foreign Secretary, they exemplify and underline the obstructive attitude that he took to the Select Committee's inquiry. They provide yet further evidence of the arrogance with which he and the Government treat Parliament. In my remaining remarks, I shall focus on the substantive failure on the part of Ministers to which both the Select Committee and the Legg inquiry drew attention. The Select Committee put it in this way:
We conclude that the government policy on individual arms embargoes must never again be stated in a way which could mislead Parliament, the public and even the FCO's own staff.
The Legg inquiry concluded:
Government has a responsibility to give citizens, and its own officials, reasonable publicity and explanation of the laws it makes under delegated powers, especially laws creating serious criminal offences. That was not done in this case.
Those are very serious charges. They are abundantly justified by the contents of the two reports. As I shall show, Ministers were directly involved.
What happened, in essence, was as follows. Ministers decided, for good reasons, to impose an arms embargo on Sierra Leone after the junta had deposed President Kabbah. For understandable reasons, they made that embargo comprehensive in scope. It had the goal of drying up arms supplies to all the parties in Sierra Leone; that was the objective of Ministers. Yet the embargo was consistently and deliberately described as a partial embargo. It was that misdescription which was misleading—to Parliament, the public and even the

Foreign and Commonwealth Office's own staff—and, as we shall see, that misdescription was the responsibility of Ministers. That is the essence of the charge that we make.
The ministerial decision to impose an embargo on Sierra Leone was implemented first by a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations and subsequently by an Order in Council.
That order made it a criminal offence, punishable by a maximum of seven years' imprisonment, to supply or deliver arms and military equipment to
any persons connected with Sierra Leone.
As Legg and the Select Committee found, if, indeed, any such finding was necessary, it was the Government's duty to publicise and explain that law. Yet the Government wholly failed to discharge that duty. Every document that they issued which sought to explain it, every statement that they made about it, was, in the words of the Foreign Secretary himself, "plainly wrong".
Those statements included Foreign Office daily bulletins, a telegram to posts in west Africa advising them of the embargo's ambit, an answer to the House from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), even a reference to the embargo in the communiqué of the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference at Edinburgh, to which the Prime Minister put his name.
The statements extended it to a letter, written by a senior Foreign Office official to the Foreign Minister of Sierra Leone—I quote verbatim from the Select Committee's report—
making it clear that the UN sanctions applied to the Junta but without disclosing that, in the British government's view, they also applied to the very government to whose Foreign Minister she was writing.
All that would be bad enough if it had been accidental, but it was deliberate. That is what the Legg inquiry concluded. It stated:
the British framers of the October 1977 Resolution"—
the Security Council resolution—
 … did not doubt that the arms embargo imposed by the Resolution was comprehensive in its coverage.
It continued:
However, British officials and Ministers"—
I stress "and Ministers"—
continued to play this aspect down".
Legg goes on to explain why. It was, the inquiry says, partly because of the sensitivities about the possible role of the Economic Community of West African States, which, unlike Her Majesty's Government, had explicitly contemplated the use of force, and about the role of Nigeria within ECOWAS and the ECOWAS military observer group.
There, in a nutshell, we have it. A deliberate attempt was made to mis-state the scope and effect of the embargo, to play it down, in the words of the Legg report, because British officials and Ministers knew that those on the ground in Africa contemplated the use of force. What was the role of individual Ministers in all this? The Minister of State authorised United Nations Security Council resolutions. He saw and approved the Order in Council which created the criminal offences. He knew that its scope was comprehensive. That, after all, was his policy. Yet on 12 March 1998 he told the House that the sanctions were imposed "on the military junta".
That could have been an oversight. It could have been inadvertent. The Minister of State could have done what "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" require him to do, which is to
correct any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.
But he has not done that. The Minister of State and the Foreign Secretary persisted for months in their attempt to justify their mis-statement of the effect of the embargo as
not inconsistent with the fact that it was not only to the Junta to which the arms embargo applied.
It was that explanation to which the Select Committee referred when it gave its damning findings in paragraph 19 of its report that
half-truths are a dangerous commodity in which to trade.
What an extraordinary thing for a Select Committee to say about the language of a Foreign Secretary and his Department.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howard: Not at the moment. As we know, even the Foreign Secretary was unable to continue with that fiction indefinitely. In the end, on 16 December, the Foreign Secretary gave up. He finally recognised and admitted the truth. The language used in telegram 277, which sought to explain to posts in west Africa, the ambit of the Security Council resolution was, he said, "plainly wrong". He had at last realised that he could no longer carry on the farce of pretending that the language used by his Department was correct but incomplete. It was not: it was plainly wrong. The language used in that telegram describing the ban as a ban on the supply of arms to the junta was the same as the language used in the Foreign Office daily bulletins, in the Commonwealth Heads of Government communiqué and in the Minister of State's answer in the House. If the telegram was plainly wrong, then so were they.
What does the Minister of State intend to do about his answer to the House on 12 March: the answer that the Foreign Secretary has told us was plainly wrong? We look forward to hearing what the Minister of State has to say about that when he winds up the debate. What of the Foreign Secretary? Did he not see the telegram that was plainly wrong, or the FCO daily bulletins? Was he unaware of the Minister's answer to the House on 12 March? Was he not consulted on the communiqué issued at the end of the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference? We know of his well-publicised aversion to finishing his paperwork. If he failed to see any of the documents itemised by the Select Committee, that, in itself, speaks volumes about the way in which he discharges his responsibilities. I call on him to answer each of the specific questions which I have put. The truth of the matter is that, in the words of the Legg report, Ministers deliberately "played down" the scope and effect of the embargo that they had imposed. They deliberately misrepresented the terms of the Order in Council, which created criminal offences that could have led to someone being sent to prison for seven years. They stated their policy in a way in which, in the words of the Select Committee's report, misled
Parliament, the public and even the FCO's own staff.

It is difficult to imagine a more serious charge. This is the Government who the Prime Minister said must be purer than pure. This is the Foreign Secretary who purported to introduce an ethical foreign policy. This is also the Foreign Secretary who said:
Tonight Parliament has the opportunity to insist that Ministers must accept responsibility for their conduct in office and to assert that the health of our democracy depends on the honesty of Government to Parliament."—[Official Report, 26 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 617.]
I invite him to live up to those words today.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the decision of the Foreign Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 1998–99 (HC 116) on Sierra Leone to commend the resolute support which the British Government is giving to the restoration of democracy in Sierra Leone and endorses the conclusion of the Legg Inquiry that no Minister had given encouragement or approval to any breach of the arms embargo on Sierra Leone; notes that the inquiry on Sierra Leone of the Foreign Affairs Committee has found no evidence of Ministerial encouragement or approval; and congratulates Her Majesty's Government on accepting all the recommendations of the Report of the Legg Inquiry and on the steps it has since taken to modernise management in the FCO.'.
I found myself agreeing with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) for one minute at the beginning of his speech. That was the one minute in which he dealt with the plight of the people of Sierra Leone. I fully share his dismay at their plight. If the House will allow me, I intend to take more than one minute to respond to that plight. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he wants to talk about the conduct of Ministers. All right, let us talk about the conduct of Ministers on policy towards Sierra Leone.
Last night, a special report at the top of the BBC news exposed the evil that the rebels in Sierra Leone represent. In their brief occupation of Freetown in January, the rebel forces vividly lived up to their reputation for brutality and butchery. They murdered politicians, humanitarian staff, religious workers, journalists and lawyers. They carried out repeated acts of arson, even when they knew that the consequence would be to burn alive elderly and disabled men and women.
From the first day of the rebel forces' entry into Freetown, local hospitals admitted a growing stream of civilians with arms amputated, including children as young as six. A large number of children who were abducted by the rebel forces are still missing. In at least one case, their father was forced to watch his female children raped before they were taken away.
What should concern the House most of all is how we can prevent such evil from gaining power by force of arms in Sierra Leone.

Mr. Nigel Jones: The Foreign Secretary will know that the violence has spread outside the capital, Freetown. My constituency has a link with the town of Kambia, which is north-east of the capital. I am a patron of the Kambia hospital appeal, which seeks to support doctors and nurses providing health care in the area.
At the weekend, I received unconfirmed reports that the hospital had been hit by the rebels, looted and perhaps set on fire. Has the Foreign Secretary heard any further news about what is going on in the region, and can he assure us that our Government will provide whatever assistance is necessary to get the hospital up and running again?

Mr. Cook: I can confirm that the hospital has been looted, and has been badly damaged by arson. I can also confirm that the Department for International Development will be ready to try to make good some of the damage. First, however, we must regain the territory in which the hospital is situated. We must work with ECOMOG to push the rebels further back in the country.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe said that our influence in the country was limited. That is true; nevertheless, the fact is that no nation on the globe outside the region has done more than we have to prevent the rebel forces from gaining power, or more to support the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) pointed out, the Foreign Affairs Committee itself commends
the resolute support which the British Government is giving to the restoration of democracy and the alleviation of suffering
in Sierra Leone.
First, we have provided a wealth of practical support for the ECOMOG forces who are doing the fighting. Since the start of this year alone, we have provided more than £1 million-worth of trucks and communication equipment. We have organised and paid for the airlift of the Ghanaian battalion to join the Nigerian forces in Sierra Leone. Even the maps used by the ECOMOG operation have been supplied by Britain. Partly as a result of that help, ECOMOG has been able successfully to clear the rebels from Freetown. The support that we gave helped to preserve the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone, and, more immediately, saved the lives of thousands who might otherwise have perished at the hands of the rebels.
Secondly, Britain is far the largest national donor of development aid to Sierra Leone. Since the restoration of President Kabbah a year ago, Britain has committed more than £20 million, which has been vital in supplying food, promoting security and providing medical aid to help the victims of the rebels' brutality. It has also helped in the longer-term task of recreating the basic institutions of government in Sierra Leone.
Thirdly, Britain has led international pressure on Liberia to end its support for the rebels. The real tragedy of Sierra Leone is that its people are among the poorest in the world, while their country is among the richest in diamonds. There are too many outside forces whose sole interest is in seizing and retaining control of the diamond fields.
The situation on the ground in Sierra Leone remains very worrying. The rebels retain control of much of the countryside, and have successfully launched counter-offensives on some provincial towns. The struggle for control of Sierra Leone is not over, and there is no guarantee that the forces of democracy and stability will prevail. We have therefore been reviewing what further support Britain can provide, and I am pleased to say that the Government have decided to commit up to an additional £10 million from the reserve to promote stability in Sierra Leone.
That substantial investment will have three objectives. The first objective is to help the ECOMOG forces to roll back the rebels. We shall use those resources to meet the most pressing needs of ECOMOG to transport its troops, communicate with them and feed them. The second objective is to encourage the rebels to lay down their arms, and to offer them a future in a civilian life. We shall use part of our funds to underwrite initiatives in demilitarisation, and to integrate the rebels into the civilian economy. The third objective is to create a professional and democratically accountable army for the Government. We shall fund a British military training team to supervise a programme for a professional army and for its civilian management.
We are asking our partners around the world to make similar contributions, and I am pleased to say that the Administrations of the United States, Canada and several of our European partners are already considering how they can follow our lead.
Britain's support is well known and well appreciated in the region. Last month, President Abubakar of Nigeria rang my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to thank him for Britain's invaluable support for ECOMOG. Last night, I spoke to President Kabbah by telephone to inform him of our new programme of support. He also recorded his gratitude to the UK for its continued support and assistance.
President Kabbah and the people of Sierra Leone would regard with disbelief the partisan speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe. They know that the conduct of Ministers has provided them with more help than any other western country. In the past two months, throughout the crisis in Freetown and the many measures that we have taken in response to it, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his team have shown no interest in the problems of the people of Sierra Leone; nor have they made a single proposal as to how to help their plight. They remain utterly obsessed with Sandline International.
Let us at least agree on one point. Sandline International's activities from start to finish have been totally irrelevant to the military balance on the ground and even more irrelevant to the needs of the people of Sierra Leone. The main interest of Sandline International and its sister group of companies has been not democracy, but diamonds.
The first finding of the Legg report was that Sandline International's supply of arms played "little or no part" in the restoration of President Kabbah. That is not surprising as the arms did not even arrive until the rebels had been cleared out of Freetown for the first time.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Foreign Secretary is probably correct to say that the arms were not key, but what was absolutely essential was the military advice and co-ordination of the air cell that was provided by Sandline International to ECOMOG forces. Those forces had been repulsed in December. It was President Kabbah's assessment that he needed good military advice and advisers to enable ECOMOG to succeed, which is what it did when he got them.

Mr. Cook: As I recall, the air cell to which the hon. Gentleman refers was one rather ancient eastern European helicopter, which, famously, required repair by a British


naval ship. It is that sort of enormous self-obsession with what Sandline International may have contributed that creates fury in Nigeria, where thousands of troops have died fighting to restore the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone.
The Legg inquiry did find a number of misjudgments by officials and cultural failings in the Foreign Office. I accepted those findings. I accepted all the inquiry's recommendations. Since I presented the Legg report to Parliament seven months ago, I have acted on those recommendations.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Cook: I will, but then I must make progress.

Mr. Heald: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has put things right by following the recommendations of the Legg report. How then can he possibly explain why he connived in the leaking of the Select Committee report? Surely that is something that he should—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I do not think that the term "connive" is one that hon. Members should use. [Interruption.] Order. Please let me speak. In addition, I understand that Madam Speaker has made a ruling about the matter. The hon. Gentleman knows about it.

Mr. Cook: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For what it is worth, there were two leaks of the Select Committee report, one in The Independent and one in The Times. Neither came from the Foreign Office. The source of those leaks is elsewhere, but the hon. Member for North—East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said that he was rising on the point that I was addressing. Let me then tell him what we have done to put right what the Legg inquiry identified.
I have restored the central unit for the enforcement of sanctions, which the previous Government had abolished. I have taken steps to ensure that all intelligence reports are properly logged and distributed. I have issued new guidance that there should be no contact with private military firms without clearance or a written record.
I have initiated a programme of modernisation in the management of the Foreign Office, which is increasing the number of specialists and professional managers in our administration. We are able to afford that programme of modernisation only because last year's spending review produced the best settlement for the Foreign Office for half a dozen years. [Interruption.] I honestly do not know what the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) finds funny about that. She belongs to a party that, in the previous Parliament, cut the Foreign Office budget by a sixth. The number of diplomatic staff dealing with Africa fell by a quarter during a decade in which her party was in office. It is no wonder that the Legg report concluded that one of the reasons that mistakes were made was that officials had an impossible overload.
In the spending increase, I have secured the Department's budget. I have doubled the number of staff in the West Africa section covering Sierra Leone—[Interruption.] It is true.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I tell my right hon. Friend that one of the concerns I had as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee was the appallingly long hours worked by middle and junior-ranking officials. Will he confirm that they are no longer working 70 or 80-hour-weeks?

Mr. Cook: I cannot confirm to the House that there are not officials in that section, or in other sections in the Foreign Office, who may occasionally be required in emergencies to work 70 or 80 hours a week. I am confident, however, that the pressure on the section has been greatly eased by the doubling of its numbers.
The sharp reduction—100 staff in the Africa command—in the past decade has to be placed in the context that, in the same decade, there were in Africa more conflicts and crises, which had to be handled by a dwindling number of staff. If Conservative Members wish to debate the conduct of Ministers, vital to the debate is the way in which we are repairing the damage done by their conduct of the Foreign Office.
The Legg inquiry concluded that the officials involved were "loyal and conscientious". The inquiry recognised that the officials had had to
endure an anxious period of criticism and uncertainty",
and expressed the hope that its report would
close the chapter as far as they are concerned.
I have never made any secret of my view that it was wrong that the same officials were then put on trial, for a second time, by the Foreign Affairs Committee. Nevertheless, contrary to the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, the Foreign Office fully co-operated with the Select Committee inquiry. With the sole exception of secret intelligence reports, the Select Committee was given access to every document that the Legg inquiry saw.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe said that we had obstructed the Select Committee's work—[Interruption.] Perhaps I should refer him to paragraph 99 of the report, in which the Committee welcomed the documents that I released. The report states:
It was a quantum leap in extending the capacity of committees to hold the Executive to account. As the Foreign Secretary himself said, the 'committee has had more access to official documents than any of its predecessors or indeed any of its parallels.' We welcome the Government's decision to allow the Select Committee access to most of the key official documents in the Sandline affair.
That is the view of the Committee itself.
As I said, I accept all of the recommendations of the Legg report. I shall respond later formally to the Select Committee's report, but I tell the House now that it is my intention to accept many of its recommendations.
I agree with the Select Committee, for example, that any change to arms embargoes should be announced to Parliament and placed in the Library; it has already been done. I agree that all officials should be doubly careful in contacts with persons under criminal investigation, and I have instructed them to consult first with our legal advisers. I agree with the Select Committee on the need


for action against arms brokering, and the Government are carefully considering responses to proposals in our recent White Paper on the subject.
I believe also that the Committee is right to be concerned about the particular sensitivities in dealing with military companies whose staff include former members of the armed forces or intelligence agencies. I also share its view that Colonel Spicer should have known more about the legal position on the supply of arms, and that he was less than frank with Foreign Office officials about his supply of arms. In its postscript, the Select Committee observes that the aim of lasting peace in Sierra Leone is "hardly likely" to be helped by the activities of mercenary forces. I could not agree more.
I also welcome what the omissions from the Select Committee's report tell us about what the Select Committee found. The report does not raise the slightest doubt about the central findings of the Legg inquiry—that there was no connivance in the Foreign Office at a breach of the arms embargo, and no conspiracy by either officials or Ministers to undermine the publicly stated policy.
The sole ministerial quote that was produced by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe in his entire speech was that from the speech by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) in which he said to the House, correctly, that the embargo applied to the junta.
That speech, made in March, was utterly irrelevant to a breach of the arms embargo by Sandline which had already happened. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has never explained how he imagines that a speech in March could have caused confusion to Sandline when it signed a contract the previous December or when it supplied the arms in the previous February. Not even Colonel Spicer has used the novel line of reasoning that in December 1997 he was confused by a speech that was to be made in March 1998. Yet, after two exhaustive reports, that is the best that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can do to find fault with the conduct of Ministers.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has spent the past year trying to unearth a political scandal over Sandline. He has not found it because it does not exist. This is not the arms to Iraq affair where Ministers in the previous Government relaxed the rules in order to arm Saddam Hussein, where the same Ministers deliberately resolved not to inform Parliament of the change in policy and where Ministers tried to cover up their own complicity by suppressing the evidence.
In the case of Sierra Leone there was no change in policy, no secret approval of the supply of arms and no cover-up. There are lessons to be learned and that is why I set up the Legg inquiry to establish what went wrong and how we put it right. We have acted on its recommendations.

Mr. Howard: I have been waiting patiently. The Foreign Secretary has been speaking for nearly 20 minutes but he has still to deal with the main charge that I made in my speech. Is he suggesting that it is

perfectly all right to mislead this House, as the Minister of State did on 12 March, as long as Colonel Spicer was not misled? Will he now deal with all the other documents—every single one of them—in which the policy of Her Majesty's Government was mis-stated in a way that, as the Select Committee report says, misled Parliament, the public and the officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Will he answer that question?

Mr. Cook: There is no question of the House being misled. My hon. Friend the Minister of State said what is absolutely correct and true, which is that the embargo applied to the junta.

Mr. Howard: That is precisely the formulation that the Foreign Secretary described as being plainly wrong when he dealt with telegram 277 before the Select Committee. The words are identical.

Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that I was not saying that about the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. [Interruption.] Colonel Spicer and anybody else seeking to supply weapons or arms to Sierra Leone would have known perfectly well, as the Select Committee said, that there was domestic legislation in place. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a lot of noise in the Chamber and it is coming particularly from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The hon. Gentleman is trying my patience. I must hear what the Secretary of State is saying.

Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe complains that I have been speaking for 20 minutes, but I am addressing the House on issues on which he did not address the House—the problem of Sierra Leone. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to debate the conduct of Ministers on Sierra Leone, he must be prepared to hear about the conduct of Ministers on Sierra Leone.
I go to the region next week. I will visit Nigeria where I will be one of the first Foreign Ministers to congratulate the newly elected president. My visit will be against a background of good will of the people of Nigeria for this Government because they know how strongly we condemned the repression of General Abacha and because they know that we worked harder than any other country to see their democracy restored.
I will go to Ghana and the Ivory Coast with my colleague Hubert Vedrine, the French Foreign Minister, on the first ever joint visit. In the Ivory Coast we will convene a joint conference of British and French Heads of Mission. There is no other European country with as strong a representation as Britain and France. We will be exploring how we can co-operate and use that joint strength in tackling the problems in Africa of violent conflict and the poverty that breeds it.

Mr. Howard: Avoiding the issue.

Mr. Cook: I am addressing the problems of the region, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not. He said nothing about what more the Foreign Office could do about the problems of the region.
I intend to meet President Kabbah while I am in the region. I expect to discuss how we can best use the resources that I have announced today to strengthen his Government and promote stability in Sierra Leone. The visit will underline the Government's commitment to the region and our fresh approach to its problems. That is the conduct of Ministers on Sierra Leone that should concern the House. I am happy to be judged on it.
By contrast, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech did not contain a single policy proposal towards Sierra Leone or the region. It is worth restating that, because it remains the flaw in the Conservatives' criticisms of Ministers' conduct. They wish to debate the conduct of Ministers, but not their conduct in relation to Sierra Leone. The debate is motivated not by their support for the people of Sierra Leone, but all too transparently by their desire to wring party advantage from the crisis in that country. That approach would be massively rejected by the people of Sierra Leone and it should be massively rejected by the House.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The most important conclusion of the Select Committee's report is the last one, which reminds us that the purpose of the Select Committee system is to ensure that
officials and Ministers are aware that the beam of the select committee searchlight may one day swing in their direction, and they may have to justify their action—or inaction—when subject to intense scrutiny".
I cannot avoid making some reference to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) before I deal with the Committee's conclusions. He is right to be concerned about half-truths. If he remembers the Scott inquiry report, he will know that a distinguished civil servant, who has but recently left the Foreign Office, said that half a truth could still be the truth. That comment attracted some of Sir Richard Scott's most damaging criticism. The Cabinet of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member declined to accept the report.
The centrepiece of the Scott inquiry report was the fact that the House had been deceived, because, while the statement of policy remained the same, the method of application of that policy had changed in a material way. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct to be indignant if the House has been misled, but he would also be right to remember that the Government of which he was a member did not have a distinguished record in such matters. It gives me no pleasure to say that some of the conduct of this Government has been eerily reminiscent of that of the previous Government. We were entitled to better, and we expected better.
The Foreign Secretary sought to distance the Foreign Office from Sandline. That is a legitimate argument, but it does not sit with the extent to which Colonel Spicer was in contact with the Foreign Office at material moments of the narrative with which the Select Committee is concerned. After the Legg inquiry and the report of the Select Committee, which was couched in terms as strong as any of us can remember a Select Committee using, no one is responsible, no one is at fault and no one has been disciplined.
One issue above all lay at the heart of the mismanagement of the affair: the misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the United Nations resolution limiting arms exports. The Select Committee report reveals that, for months collectively, the Foreign Office did not appreciate the contents of that resolution; for months collectively, it did not understand the effect of that resolution when it was incorporated into domestic law. In my judgment, that lack of understanding was culpable and cannot be excused.
The Select Committee report contains a catalogue of failures, outlined either expressly or by implication, including the failure of officials to brief Ministers, which is described as appalling; the failure of officials to advise Ministers of material developments, including even a raid by Customs and Excise on the Foreign Office; and the failure to advise of the possibility of the prosecution of a Foreign Office official on an indictable offence.
How often does Customs and Excise knock on the door of the Foreign Office with a warrant in its hand, that it should not rate the immediate notification of Ministers? How often are Foreign Office officials at risk of prosecution for indictable offences, that the Foreign Secretary should not be instantly advised?
There was a failure to respond to the article in the Toronto Globe and Mail of 1 August 1997, which said that Sandline was involved in plans to overthrow the junta; and a failure to respond to Colonel Tim Spicer's phone call of 5 January 1998, saying that he had signed an agreement to give $10 million of support to President Kabbah. How on earth could it be, as the Committee rightly asks, that no one thought that the support might involve the supply of arms? Was not that a reasonable inference from the size of the sum involved?
There was a failure to understand the significance of, and to act on, the letter of 5 February 1998 from my noble Friend Lord Avebury drawing attention to the Toronto Globe and Mail article and a new article in US News and World Report, which contained accurate information about the supply of arms. That failure was described by the Foreign Secretary, in his evidence to the Committee, as
one of the gravest errors and misjudgments".
There was a failure to brief Ministers properly and, as a result, the House was misled, but still no one is responsible or at fault and no one has been disciplined.
The truth is that both Legg, in rather more sedate language, and the Select Committee report, in rather more blunt and direct language, reveal an embarrassing litany of incompetence that is all the more significant if we recall that Sierra Leone was the subject of direct prime ministerial interest, as the Prime Minister extended to the deposed President Kabbah an invitation to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh as his personal guest.
Neither Sir Thomas Legg nor the Committee held Ministers personally to blame, but Ministers should feel some sense of discomfort about the fact that such things were going on in a Department for which they had responsibility. I want to read a passage that reflects the kind of responsibility that ought to be taken on such occasions.
In the Scott report debate, the Foreign Secretary, who was then shadow Foreign Secretary, said:
The Government are fond of lecturing the rest of the nation on its need to accept responsibility. Parents are held responsible for actions; teachers are held responsible for the performance of their pupils; local councillors are held legally and financially responsible; yet, when it comes to themselves, suddenly not a single Minister can be found to accept responsibility for what went wrong."—[Official Report, 26 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 606.]
That was approximately three years ago—it is as apposite today as it was then.
I am bound by Madam Speaker's ruling that there can be no reference to the events with regard to the obtaining of the Select Committee draft report, except in passing. In passing, all I can say is that I would have expected Ministers to have some sense of discomfort about the sudden and unheralded appearance in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of a draft of the report. I am bound to say that, judging by its previous performance, I am almost surprised that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office realised the significance of the document that had been sent to it.
Last week, the Foreign Secretary responded to a question from me as to why the document simply had not been sent back by saying that no one would have believed him if he had sent it back and said that he had not read it. He may, with time, care to reflect on that self-assessment of his credibility.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Following that line of logic, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how it is that, with a permanent under-secretary of considerable experience, probity and efficiency—as witnessed by Ministers from the previous Government and other observers—the Foreign Office is such a toy-town organisation? I find that incredible, and it seems that the permanent under-secretary is acting as an air-raid shelter for Ministers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that we should not debate the leak. That is for another time.

Mr. Campbell: That was a timely and helpful intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the Committee addresses that matter, and has views on it. The Committee considered the evidence in detail and reached a conclusion. I was not present throughout the consideration by the Committee and, therefore, I am not willing to substitute my judgment for that of the Committee.
It is time to blow away the fog of obscurity surrounding arms exports. It is time to have a Select Committee of the House to monitor arms export policy and, if necessary, to scrutinise individual transactions. It is time to provide for an international means of dealing with arms brokering in defiance of UN resolutions. It is time to provide that a transaction involving a transfer from anywhere in the world to anywhere else in the world would be illegal if it would be illegal for those arms to be transferred from the UK.
We ought to be willing to consider extra-territorial jurisdiction in this matter, because it makes a nonsense of UN resolutions—and the way in which they are imported into our domestic law—if, as in the present case, arms

transferred from Bulgaria to Sierra Leone at the instigation of a broker based in the UK would not, apparently, constitute a breach of criminal law.

Mr. John Bercow: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the reports had not directly criticised Ministers. Does he agree with the verdict of the Select Committee report that
many of problems which occurred would not have occurred … If ministers had made their policy on dealings with mercenaries clearer to officials".
Does he agree that, in that sense, Ministers are culpable?

Mr. Campbell: That is the conclusion of the Committee, and I see no reason to substitute my judgment for its judgment. I go further—one would have expected Ministers to be on their inquiry. I go back to the fact that Sierra Leone was not some country of which we knew little. It was a country in which No. 10 Downing street was taking an express interest, at the instigation, quite rightly, of the Prime Minister—all the more reason for Ministers to be on their inquiry.
All of that produced for the people of Sierra Leone nothing but the lasting horrors of a civil war of utmost brutality, which is still being visited upon the population of that benighted country. That is why I have urged the Government before today to ensure that they continue to provide logistical assistance to President Kabbah, following the statement that the Secretary of State made in the House on 19 January.
The Government should work with the Commonwealth and the United Nations to ensure that Nigeria does not become so disillusioned with its role in Sierra Leone that it pulls its personnel out of the ECOMOG forces. The recent election in Nigeria must surely throw that matter into sharp focus. The Government should bring all possible pressure to bear on the Government in Liberia to cause them to cease to interfere in the internal affairs of Sierra Leone. We should be making plans now for the rebuilding of Freetown's damaged infrastructure, and providing support for development programmes in the region and emergency relief.
Coincidentally, the Foreign Secretary came today with £10 million in his pocket. I am delighted that he brought that money. It is only a little more than the $10 million that Sandline was to gain for providing support to President Kabbah. Of course £10 million is better than nothing, but what effect will it have on the devastation from which we now know Sierra Leone is suffering?
That is a proper commitment, but we will want to see that it is fully implemented. Only if the Government fully implement the commitments announced and reinforced today by the Foreign Secretary will they have a chance to salvage something from a period in their history that has done no credit to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and even less to the Government themselves.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I have three initial reflections. First, the backcloth is the agony and suffering of the people of Sierra Leone. That should be our main concern. Against that agony and suffering, the ambit of the Foreign Affairs Committee report is relatively insignificant. The people of Sierra Leone and the friends of that Commonwealth country would be


appalled if the debate turned into just another party game. That is why I welcome the £10 million which my right hon. Friend said in his statement today would be committed to Sierra Leone.
Secondly, the prospect of the debate becoming a party game is part of the problem that we face in a Select Committee in a highly partisan and personalised political structure. Select Committees act as Committees of the legislature monitoring the Executive. There is clearly great pressure on Committee members not to score own goals and to support their own side, particularly on a matter such as this. Since May last year, the debate in the Chamber has become highly partisan, and it seemed that those on the Opposition Front Bench were trying to dress it up as if it were a replay of the arms to Iraq scandal.
However, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, that was light years away. The Government at that time deliberately misled the House on a change of policy and were even prepared to countenance the imprisonment of business men to cover up their own failings.

Mr. Blunt: That is not true.

Mr. Anderson: It is true. I invite the hon. Gentleman to examine the history of the Scott report and the conduct of the Conservative Government at that time.
The highest the charge can be put in this case is that the Government allowed, or connived at, the action of a British company to supply a quantity of arms to an elected and internationally recognised head of state of a friendly Commonwealth country who had been ousted in a coup by a motley group of rebels.
The House hardly needs to be reminded of the arms to Iraq scandal and of the role played by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at that time. I suspect that the Opposition thought that they had struck gold with Sierra Leone, and that they would be able to find the Foreign Secretary's fingerprints on some form of conspiracy. Those who had not been conspicuous in their concern for Sierra Leone, either before or after the sad events and the suffering there, seized on an apparent opportunity to embarrass the Secretary of State as he sought to help to stabilise that benighted country.
My final preliminary point relates to the leak. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs this morning agreed its first special report on the premature disclosure of the report on Sierra Leone. I congratulate the Committee's staff on ensuring that the special report is available in the Vote Office so that hon. Members may peruse it.
There is sadness that there was a leak. I trust that the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges will consider the substantial mitigation offered after the event by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). The leak is a warning to every hon. Member of the seriousness of those matters, particularly when it comes to the leaking of a draft report on which a Government who were so inclined might seek to pressurise members of a Select Committee to moderate their views.
I commend the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee's staff on the original report. They worked long and hard in difficult circumstances. Hon. Members

will know that two thirds or more of the report deals with the substance of the arms to Sierra Leone affair. The last part of the report deals more generally with relations between the Executive and the legislature, which, in my judgment, are of general importance to Select Committees.
I shall outline the background of the events relating to the supply of arms. The terms of reference of the Foreign Affairs Committee were: first, to examine whether
actions by Government personnel in relation to Sierra Leone after
the ousting of President Kabbah on
25 May 1997 were consistent with implementation of the Government's policy that
President Kabbah should be restored only
by peaceful means; and, whether deficiencies have been revealed in the arrangements in the FCO for passing information to Ministers and implementing their instructions.
Was there a conspiracy? There is not, in the phrase initially used in the report, a scintilla of evidence to suggest that the Foreign Secretary knew that there was a potential breach of the arms embargo. Try as anyone might to find the fingerprints of the Foreign Secretary, or any knowledge on his part, there is no evidence to that end.
Nor can any reasonable person conclude that the Foreign Secretary should have had such knowledge or made inquiries. Is it seriously suggested that the Foreign Secretary should scurry around the corridors of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, looking in at the doors of relevant sections to say, "Is there anything untoward in Sierra Leone that I should know about?" That is not a counsel of perfection, but an absurd proposition. However much one tries to pin blame on the Foreign Secretary, it is clear that he did not know about what was happening in Sierra Leone, and there was no reasonable way for him to have found out about it by his own means.

Mr. Keith Simpson: The hon. Gentleman may intend to develop his argument on those lines, but will he say who is to blame? As I said when I intervened on the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), the permanent under secretary at the Foreign Office is a highly efficient and competent senior official. It is to be expected that the Foreign Secretary would have asked questions about the matter, and that his officials would report to him on it. There appears to be an enormous credibility gap at the centre of the hon. Gentleman's exposition.

Mr. Anderson: The hon. Gentleman asks who is to blame. Does he seriously suggest that the Foreign Secretary should go around asking people whether anything is wrong in Sierra Leone? It cannot seriously be suggested that my right hon. Friend knew what was going on. As for blaming anyone, as the Legg report and our Committee pointed out, serious deficiencies in the conduct of officials were revealed during the course of our inquiries. I invite people to read the Committee's report and to let it speak for itself in terms of the actions—or, rather, the inactions—of several key players in the machine.
I believe that I speak for all members of the Select Committee in expressing our enormous admiration for the quality and efficiency of Foreign Office personnel in our dealings with Foreign Office officials in this country and


when we travel abroad. However, in this episode, we conclude that the officials concerned failed badly, and that is where the blame lies.

Mr. Simpson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I do not suggest that the Foreign Secretary—to use the hon. Gentleman's emotive words—should scuttle around seeking information. However, the Foreign Secretary has senior officials, who report to him, and special advisers. Speaking as a special adviser to a previous Administration, I can say that one would immediately recognise that, if something like that was going on, one had to act as the eyes and ears of the Foreign Secretary. Indeed, I understand that, in this case, it was the special adviser—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a speech.

Mr. Anderson: The fact is that those officials did not inform the Foreign Secretary. The hon. Gentleman takes a rather classical view of ministerial responsibility. The last time that the view was taken that Ministers should be responsible for everything that happens in their Department was the Crichel Down affair in 1954 and the doctrine was obsolete even then. Given the complexity of modern government, no Minister can seriously be expected to be responsible for everything that happens in his Department. If the hon. Gentleman still holds that strict classical view of ministerial responsibility, I suggest that he has a quiet word with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who has previous form on that matter from his time at the Home Office.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The $64,000 question is why the Foreign Secretary thinks that our criticism of officials is disproportionate and unfair. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend is not in the Chamber; he should be here to listen to the speech of the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Anderson: I am not a psychiatrist, merely a politician. I can only suggest that the Foreign Secretary was showing an excess of misguided loyalty. Initially, he said that the Committee was unfair to civil servants. However, I invite hon. Members to read the report and let its words on the conduct of the officials speak for themselves.

Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Anderson: Let me first go through the Foreign Secretary's three criticisms. Secondly, he said that the Legg committee set out what went wrong and that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had put it right. That is partially correct, but the Select Committee's recommendations went substantially beyond those of the Legg report. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary very properly said today that the Foreign Office was responding positively to a number of our recommendations—recommendations that were not part of the Legg report.
Finally, the Foreign Secretary said:
Seven months later the Select Committee has not come up with a single significant fact that was not already in the Legg Report.

I would respond as follows. First, Sir Thomas Legg is an establishment figure—a fact reflected in his report—and he clearly pulled his punches unnecessarily in many instances. Secondly, the Legg report was conducted in private, while the Foreign Affairs Committee held meetings in the full glare of the press, television cameras and the public. We are accountable to the public and the people can draw their own conclusions.
Paragraph 72 of the report refers to a clear instance when the Committee uncovered more than the Legg report in relation to minutes of a meeting of 3 December 1997. The Legg report proceeded on the basis of a certain assumption that was revealed only in January this year to be incorrect. I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary has said that he will respond positively to a number of our recommendations.
I shall now deal with the final part of the report about Executive-legislative relations, which is of general interest to the House.

Dr. Godman: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. My intervention is prompted by the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) about the permanent under-secretary who, in my opinion, is a very fine civil servant. I remind my hon. Friend that the permanent under-secretary was astonishingly and refreshingly candid whenever he appeared before the Committee, and readily admitted that he and his officials had made mistakes. Is that not so?

Mr. Anderson: Indeed. The Committee can have only the highest admiration for the permanent under-secretary in all his relations with it. The main charge against the permanent under-secretary is that, at the end of March 1998, he became aware of a raid on the Foreign Office and four weeks elapsed before he informed the Foreign Secretary about a highly sensitive matter. That information reached the Foreign Secretary only as a result of a letter from solicitors acting on behalf of Sandline. The four weeks of inaction and the failure to inform a Minister form the gravamen of the charge against the permanent under-secretary.

Ms Diane Abbott: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want the House to run away with the idea that he is trying to talk down our report, which was widely acclaimed in the media upon publication. Sadly, all the detailed criticisms of the internal workings of the Foreign Office fall squarely at the door of Sir John Kerr. Is that not correct?

Mr. Anderson: Far from talking down the work of the Committee, I believe that it has played a major role on behalf of Parliament and enhanced the credibility of Committees as a whole. If we had rolled over and done nothing, we would have remained very limp and lame for the rest of the Parliament. The Executive—if it were so inclined—could have easily ignored Select Committees.
In our system, Select Committees are a relatively new and weak creation. We have Executive-led Government, and that is particularly true in foreign affairs, where there is the Crown prerogative. If the Government are committed to the distribution of power—I am confident that they are—they should distribute power between


Parliament and the Executive with the same zeal that they have shown in distributing it within the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Select Committees are the main instrument available to Parliament for keeping the Executive in check.
The Foreign Secretary can claim with justification that he has appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee more frequently than any of his predecessors. He is also justified in claiming that he has allowed greater access to official documents than did any of his predecessors, including Conservative Ministers. However, those concessions were given reluctantly, tardily and only following protracted argument. We believe that the Foreign Secretary should have been far more willing to be open with the Committee and to provide us with the tools that we needed to do our job. That is particularly true of intelligence. We believe that Committees should have controlled access to the intelligence community and must be trusted by the Executive. Why should Sir Thomas Legg have greater access than hon. Members? We point that out forcefully.
The last part of our report deals with access to information and what is relevant to the work of other Committees. That was discussed last Thursday in the Liaison Committee, which brings together the Chairmen of all Select Committees. Since the leak has been made, I can say only that there is widespread dissatisfaction among the Chairmen not only with this Government but with all Governments and their co-operation with Select Committees. A dossier will be compiled by the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, and I hope that it will be not only debated in the House but taken seriously by the Government.
I hope that the Government will take seriously all our recommendations and that the House will recognise that we have done an effective job on behalf of Parliament. We concluded our report by using the searchlight analogy mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats.
Had there been a simple Opposition motion asking the House to agree with the conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee, it would have been extremely difficult for us to oppose that motion. Of course the Opposition have tried to be too clever and could not resist the temptation to go too far. The motion has three legs. The first
endorses the criticisms made of Ministers
in the report. No conclusions in the report directly criticise Ministers, and many seek to strengthen Ministers in their relations with officials. The high point, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife pointed out, is paragraph 19, but that recommendation is to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as a whole.
The motion's second leg
deplores the conduct of Ministers which led to such criticism".
I have already covered that point in my remarks on the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. Finally, the motion
calls on the Ministers concerned to accept responsibility for their conduct.
That fails because, in general, Ministers' conduct in substantive matters was not criticised.
On the relations between the Executive and the legislature, the criticism is mild. In paragraph 99, we welcome the increased access to documents. In paragraph

101, we urge the Government to accede to the Select Committee's request for information, irrespective of the existence of a departmental inquiry. In paragraph 109, we deal with intelligence. The Government gave more information and access than any of their predecessors, but that was not enough. It is possible, particularly because of the failure to grant access to intelligence material, that the focus of the report is not what it should have been. The Government should have been more open and co-operative.
Thus, the motion misses the point of the report: in this instance, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office machine, which is normally efficient and highly admired by the public and, indeed, by the Committee, failed to perform and to give Ministers the quality of advice that they needed. The Opposition's attempt to distil the report into criticism of individual Ministers is therefore surely a partisan distortion. I shall oppose the motion.

Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry that the debate is not called "The conduct of Ministers and their relationships with a Select Committee", because those are the most imperative matters to come out of the report.
I shall make, I hope, only one remark that will be viewed as incredibly political. I honestly believe that Ministers have to ask questions and that those with responsibility for dealing with Sierra Leone in Parliament had enough external evidence to make more inquiries of their officials in the equatorial African department in the Foreign Office, which is concerned with Sierra Leone. If they had done so, much of the fiasco would not have arisen. I shall deal with the relationship between the Select Committee and this House, and the Government, which the report has highlighted.
I have been concerned with Select Committees since their inception under the then Leader of the House, Lord St. John-Stevas, and have twice chaired the Procedure Committee when it has monitored the work of Select Committees—first in the 1980s, and then in the 1990s. It is important to me that the work of Select Committees should be able to proceed properly and fully. I believe that this is the first time that the Executive, by their action, have frustrated or attempted to frustrate the examination of one of their Departments. If I am to make that claim, I must substantiate it—and I shall.
I accept immediately the right of Ministers to ask certain appointees to examine an internal problem in their Department. That cannot be denied, but it should not be a means of frustrating or delaying the work of a House of Commons Select Committee. In this case, we were told time and again during the Committee's proceedings that details on matters, witnesses and papers could not be made available until the Legg inquiry had reported. That massively delayed the Committee, and extended the time that it took to produce its report. The Foreign Secretary criticised that delay but he was responsible for it.
Ministers and Departments should readily and willingly release papers that are necessary for an inquiry, when requested by a Select Committee. The Foreign Secretary claimed that never had more papers been made available to a Foreign Office inquiry. That may be so, but let it be understood that those papers had to be dragged out of the


Department. A request was made, and refused; a further request was also refused. Finally, following another request, the Committee was offered the option of just three of its members being allowed to go to the Foreign Office to inspect certain of the papers. The Committee grudgingly accepted that, although, following the publication of the Legg Report, all such papers had to be made available.
When the permanent secretary was first cross-examined before the Committee on 14 May 1998, he agreed to the existence of one set of papers and promised that he would do something about the matter. We did not receive the papers until five months later. That is hardly the sort of co-operation with the Committee that the Department has suggested has occurred.
Departments should not set out actively to mislead; surely that is imperative. There were several illustrations in the giving of evidence of activities which, in the kindest terms, can only be described as deliberate obfuscation. Perhaps the prime example of that was only recently, when my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
who was the first person in his Department to have sight of a copy of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone; and at what time and on what day it was seen.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office replied:
Copies of the report were collected from the Foreign Affairs Committee office … on 9 February by the Head of Parliamentary Relations Department and the Parliamentary Clerk."—[Official Report, 16 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 751.]
That is factually correct, but is misleading to the nth degree. The Minister must have known that the Foreign Secretary had had sight of the report at another time. Ministers and the Government must not give a Select Committee such misleading information.
Instead of misleading, the Government should ensure that the Minister volunteers all necessary information to a Select Committee engaged in an inquiry. I believed that that point had been established—I had something to do with it—when the Conservative Government were criticised by the Trade and Industry Committee, of which I was a member. Towards the end of our inquiry on Concorde we stumbled on several papers—accounts—that had not been presented to the Committee, and which considerably affected our inquiry. The outcome brought an assurance by the Leader of the House that it was the Government's job to help, not frustrate, the working of Select Committees, and that they should be willing to provide any documents that they knew about concerning a Committee's inquiry. I believe that that must be established absolutely in any consideration given by the House or any of its Committees, because that must be the proper way for the Executive to be held to account.
Lastly, I return to the subject of the Foreign Secretary's refusal to meet the request of the head of the Secret Intelligence Service to be seen by the Committee. The Foreign Secretary's constant refusal of any of the Committee's requests is in direct contrast to the behaviour of the Secretary of State for Defence, who was willing for the Committee to see the Chief of Defence Intelligence, Vice-Admiral Alan West. We did so very satisfactorily. The Foreign Office's refusal of our requests seems even stranger in light of the fact that it said that there was very

little that "C", the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, could say. If that was the case, why prevent his appearance? Surely that made it more likely that people would ask, "Why, oh why?" and suggest that there must be something to hide.
Today's Foreign Affairs Committee report is before the House. I hope that, in dealing with these matters, the Standards and Privileges Committee, which will have to take up the matter, will be certain to ask the right question. If documents were in the hands of a political adviser to a Government, surely no one would believe that that official would not try to ensure that Ministers, when they were preparing to make their statements, really understood what had been in the Committee's report, although that report had not been published until a few minutes before the statements were made. If the Committee's recommendations were given to the Secretary of State's political assistant, it is beyond credibility that that had no influence on the fact that Ministers, after the report was published, set out to rubbish the report merely so as to subvert the Committee's recommendations. That must not be allowed to happen again.
I make this speech in defence of the House because if we cannot, as Select Committees of the House, hold the Executive fully to account, we are failing in our duty, and I believe that Governments, whatever their complexion, must try to ensure that we can achieve that. I believe that the Government are open to severe criticism on that basis.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I shall not follow the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) in much of what he said because, in some respects, there is common ground between us on a Select Committee's role and functions and, in particular, on the powerful reaffirmation of that role which is contained in our report.
In that context, I particularly underline those conclusions and paragraphs which state that we had every right to hold an inquiry of the kind that we did. If, every time a Select Committee considered undertaking such an inquiry, it was within the gift of the Executive to set up an alternative inquiry, the Select Committee would be neutered and that would be wrong. I am sure that we have common ground in that regard, and I hope that we would gain the support of the majority of hon. Members—at least, those on the Back Benches.
However, the Opposition motion, which seeks to lay special emphasis upon ministerial responsibility, is unjustified and unjustifiable, given the totality of the Legg report and of the Select Committee's report, and the mountain of evidence that was collected. For such an emphasis to be laid by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) in his speech and in the Opposition motion is, in a curious way, an addition to the catalogue of misleading elements that have dogged the affair.
That is because that emphasis distracts from the most extraordinary feature that emerges from all the evidence and inquiries, which is that Ministers were kept in the dark about sensitive political issues that were going on and being discussed, initially within the bowels of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but which gradually rose to the top, to the level of permanent secretary.
I, like everybody else, have found that one of the most mystifying and mysterious aspects of the whole affair was that, despite all the Select Committee's efforts to discover quite what had happened and why, the central feature of all the evidence that emerged, which jumps out at one, which screams at one, was that Ministers were kept completely in the dark about quite fundamental aspects. That is why I do not agree with the emphasis of the Opposition motion. However, it is a question that we must try to answer, or at least address.
I need not illustrate that too much because the Select Committee's report is a detailed catalogue, as in some respects is the Legg report—I agree with the muted criticisms of that report by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson)—although it does not bring out the matter to the same extent.
The high commissioner, as a result of the most wonderful and commendable contact with President Kabbah, obtained "priceless" information about an arms contract, but did not initially effectively convey the nature of that information to officials in the Foreign Office.
However, Foreign Office officials dealing with the matter in London, in addition eventually to receiving from Mr. Penfold the minute of 2 February saying that this was a contract dealing with the purchase of arms had, by this time, also received, through their connections and contacts with Sandline, details of Operation Python—a detailed blow-by-blow account of how the contract was to be delivered and executed.

Sir John Stanley: To be clear on that point, the Foreign Office officials received that critical document from the British high commissioner who had previously received it from Sandline; and the British high commissioner, Mr. Penfold, passed it to the Foreign Office the day after he received it from Sandline.

Mr. Rowlands: Yes, that is a factual statement. It is commendable that Foreign Office officials obtained that information with such speed.
The officials, however, did absolutely nothing. They did not inform their senior officials, and they certainly did not inform the Foreign Secretary's private office, let alone the Minister of State responsible. I hope that the Minister of State will confirm that he did not know that the document on Operation Python was available in the Department. It was an extraordinary state of affairs.
As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, and as we know from the television programme, the Customs office knocked on the FCO's doors and raided the files, but the permanent under-secretary did not feel it sufficiently important to write even the simplest of minutes to tell the Foreign Secretary that he should be aware of what had occurred. This conjunction is incredible, and requires explanation.

Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the bulk of our criticism. The Foreign Secretary did not tell us, but perhaps the Minister of State will, why the Government consider the Committee's criticism to be disproportionate and unfair. Why do they take that view, given the points made by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend asks the question, and we await an answer from the Minister.
Given the circumstances that I have described, I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was fair in claiming that by holding our inquiry we were putting officials in double jeopardy, and that officials could not speak for themselves. Anyone reading the burden of our evidence in the lengthy transcripts will see that many members of the Committee—it was certainly the burden of my questions—were almost pleading and begging officials to explain what had happened. We did not want to reach those conclusions: it was the last thing we wanted. We tried as hard as we could to discover why this failure to pass information through officials to Ministers had occurred.
I am not a natural critic of the FCO: one of the greatest privileges in my parliamentary and political life was to serve in that Department. I have enormous respect for the FCO, and I understand and appreciate the excitement of serving in such a post. I have tried, therefore, to search for an explanation. Initially, I thought that it might be a structural problem. There have been considerable changes in the way in which the FCO is organised and administered. There has been a growth of command structures: the autonomous, self-financing portions of the FCO. I have once or twice wondered aloud whether the decision-making process had been affected by that autonomy, and whether the chain of communication had been broken, because I had thought that information was passed on quickly. I found no evidence for that explanation, and no support for it when I asked about it. I am as mystified and as dumbfounded about what happened as are other members of the Committee and many others, including Sir Thomas Legg.
The most important thing is that this failure of communication should never happen again. We cannot write a code or a manual on ministerial-civil service relations. All the textbooks in the world cannot describe the curious chemistry of the working relationship between a Secretary of State, a Minister of State, the private office and officials. It cannot be laid down in tablets of stone. I criticise the Opposition motion, because if there is one message that should go out from the House tonight it is that we must not allow such a total breach of communication between officials and Ministers as occurred in this case to happen again.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Do not paragraphs 10.56 and 10.57 of the report imply that criticism should be levelled less at individuals in the Department—who are described as loyal and conscientious—than at the institution that had been inherited from the last Government?

Mr. Rowlands: I think that we all understand the incredible pressures experienced by a small, understaffed Department dealing with west Africa. We must remember that the arrival of all this vital information coincided with the beginning of the Nigerian assault—the assault by ECOMOG—on Sierra Leone. There are mitigating circumstances, which are mentioned in the Legg report; but they cannot explain, or erase, the breach of communication that our report demonstrates so vividly—and, in my view, not inaccurately, unfairly or unjustly.
Let me mention two other aspects of the matter. One is the whole issue of the use of force. I believe that the Government experienced a genuine dilemma in that regard. If they were to restore President Kabbah by some


form of military means, they had two options. They could accept support from a Nigerian regime that was a pariah in the international community, including the Commonwealth; or—and this option was undoubtedly bound up with the Sandline contract—they could arm the Kamajors in Sierra Leone.
Understandably, that second option was queasily opposed by those in the Foreign Office—rightly, in my view. I believe, and document after document states, that it would have been wrong to arm, or rearm, the Kamajors, because that would have inflamed and accentuated the civil war. That is made clear by a number of statements, and by documents from the Cabinet Office. The Sandline contract, however, was designed to do precisely that: arm the Kamajors. Whether or not there was a breach of the UN embargo, the Sandline contract certainly constituted a breach of Government policy in every meaningful sense, and that is one of the saddest aspects of the affair.
In his evidence to the Committee, Mr. Spicer of Sandline pleaded ignorance of the UN arms embargo. That is curious. On 2 March, in a letter to President Kabbah describing the difficulty that he had experienced in delivering the contract, Mr. Spicer invoked the embargo as the obstacle. That was before any Customs raid had taken place. I view some of the pleas of total ignorance with a degree of incredulity.
Like everyone else, however, I feel that the issues must be seen in the broader context of the terrible tragedy of Sierra Leone itself. Diamonds and mercenaries have not proved to be Sierra Leone's best friends, in any sense. If there is another lesson that we can learn, it is that we should act on the whole question of arms brokerage and mercenary activity. It worries me that the idea that mercenaries could or should be used legitimately in certain circumstances is being mooted in fashionable quarters. Experts have said as much on television. It is being suggested that we should return to an earlier age of privatised warfare. If the privatisation of war is to be the bequest of the late 20th century to the 21st, that will constitute an horrific illustration of how little we have learned from our history.
I hope that, when the arguments are over, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and the Government, will find time to promote, wherever possible, a broader international consensus on how mercenary activity should be dealt with. The position is extraordinary. How in the name of heaven did Ukrainian mercenaries manage to reach Sierra Leone? We know, or suspect, how they were paid—they were paid in diamonds, in one way or another—but how did they get there? What was the chain, and what international connivance allowed it to happen? In the answer to those questions lies one of the important lessons that can be learned from the whole affair.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind my making a final observation about the mild irony of the conjunction of certain circumstances. One of his early acts in government was to commission the FCO historian to write a definitive account of an earlier Foreign Office mystery, the mystery of the Zinoviev letter; and one of the most interesting aspects of that paper, which makes fascinating reading, is the title chosen by that chief historian in the FCO to describe the 1924 mystery—"A Most Extraordinary and Mysterious Business". It is not a bad epitaph for Sierra Leone.

Sir John Stanley: I am pleased to be able to follow the pertinent and experienced speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), with much of which I agreed. I shall devote most of my own speech to what I regard as the most neglected aspect of the affair: the Government's overall policy on Sierra Leone.
I want to make two observations relating to the Select Committee report. One concerns officials, the other Ministers. When the Foreign Secretary made his statement about the Legg report on 27 July last year, he said at the outset that he was making it on the first available sitting day following his receipt of the report. He is to be commended on his promptness in coming to the House.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had time to read the report from cover to cover, but I would not be surprised—I do not say this in any spirit of criticism—if he had been unable to read in full the Legg key documents, 1 to 123. The Committee, of course, had the benefit of access to those documents. I think it most unlikely that, if the Foreign Secretary had had time to read them in full, he would have chosen to single out in his statement one official in the Foreign Office, the British high commissioner Mr. Peter Penfold, and to name him in the House for public reprimand—a naming that was carried extensively in that evening's television bulletins.
A valuable aspect of the Select Committee's report is the fact that the Committee managed to rebalance, at official level, the issue of where responsibility lay. It is patent that, where there were failures, they were not exclusively the responsibility of Mr. Peter Penfold; there were serious official failures elsewhere in the Department, going right up to the permanent under-secretary. It is important to note that a greater degree of justice has been done to Mr. Penfold in that respect.

Mr. Eric Illsley: I think that the right hon. Gentleman and I will disagree on this point. What was Mr. Penfold doing when he was holding meetings with mercenaries throughout the Christmas holiday, when he was back in the United Kingdom? That is the $64,000 question: why was he negotiating, or dealing, with mercenaries?

Sir John Stanley: The answer to that question will be clear when I turn to my second point—the responsibility of Ministers—but Mr. Peter Penfold was by no means alone among Foreign Office officials in having contacts with Sandline International.
It is abundantly clear, indeed indisputable, that what impaled the Foreign Office on the Sandline International affair was the decision, which was conscious and deliberate, to misdescribe the arms embargo policy. I am in no doubt that all the diplomatic service officials who have been before us are men and women of integrity, and that, if all the officials concerned had been clear that the arms embargo applied to all the parties to the Sierra Leone crisis, including the Government of President Kabbah in exile in Guinea, the Foreign Office would not have become involved in Sandline International's activities. It was the misdescription of the policy that lay at the heart of the Foreign Office's difficulties.
The misdescription started at an early stage and continued from the autumn of 1997 through the rest of that year to the time when President Kabbah was restored.
It is not adequate to say that officials were responsible for the misdescription of the policy. Ministers are responsible for policy and its presentation. It was not simply an external matter. The misdescription was carried through into the internal communications of the Foreign Office.
Three Ministers were associated with the misdescription: the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd). As chair of the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in October, the Prime Minister must take responsibility to a degree for the fact that the communiqué of 27 October misdescribed the arms embargo policy. Indeed, if that communiqué had correctly described the policy—if President Kabbah had known what the real policy of the British Government was—I am certain that President Kabbah, who had attended the conference by invitation, even though he was no longer in government in Freetown, and had been delighted to be at that conference, would have been furious. As Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman must, without question, have been associated with and played a role in approving the communiqué at the end of the conference.
I found extraordinary the way in which the Foreign Secretary sought to dismiss the Minister of State's description of the arms embargo on 12 March last year. Far from being irrelevant, 12 March was a critical date in relation to making it clear to whom the arms embargo applied because, two days previously, on 10 March, President Kabbah had been restored to Freetown. The arms embargo applied to the very Government who were now in post in Freetown. Therefore, if there had been a time in Parliament when it was necessary to make it clear that the arms embargo applied to President Kabbah, it was precisely that moment on 12 March.
I find it singularly unattractive and somewhat distasteful that throughout, Ministers have sought, on the Floor of the House and in evidence before the Foreign Affairs Committee, to lay the blame for the misdescription of the policy at the door of officials. It is unacceptable that, on such a central issue, Ministers have not accepted their responsibility for the misdescription.

Mr. Gapes: The right hon. Gentleman has long experience of being a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Indeed, he and I served on the Committee for five years in the previous Parliament. It is in that context that I want to ask him to confirm that the conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone do not criticise Ministers, whereas he, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and I were on the Committee in 1994, when, with a Conservative majority, it produced a report on the Pergau dam that explicitly condemned Ministers, including the former Secretary of State for Defence, for their behaviour with regard to the House and for the way in which they had dealt with that matter. Will he confirm that the latest Select Committee report does not specifically condemn Ministers?

Sir John Stanley: I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in the previous Parliament—and I do not wish to be called out of order—the Conservative Members on the Foreign Affairs Committee, who were in

a substantial majority, unshakeably did their duty to criticise the then Executive. As for Ministers and the latest report, he will see from the proceedings section that a number of amendments were tabled. They were voted down in some circumstances, but, even with the report as published, it is far from true to say that it is free of criticism of Ministers. The Select Committee makes it clear that half-truths are unacceptable and that half-truths are one of the central issues.

Mr. Insley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir John Stanley: I know that other hon. Members want to speak in the debate and I am anxious to help them, but I will give way once more.

Mr. Insley: The right hon. Gentleman referred to misdescription, as has the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who refused to give way earlier on the same point. Following parliamentary questions that were tabled by me and by one of my colleagues, it became apparent that, from 1979 to the present, Orders in Council confirming United Nations embargoes in relation to various countries had described policy and been circulated in exactly the same manner as they have been by the present Government. Therefore, in terms of misdescription, the Government appear to be doing nothing different from previous Governments.

Sir John Stanley: Based on a written answer that the Select Committee received, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The practice had always been to circulate United Nations Security Council resolutions in toto, rather than the Orders in Council themselves. That policy has been stated by Ministers. It has, apparently, been a long-standing practice. However, I am not aware of a previous occasion when Ministers have described, as they need to do in a single sentence or two, the ambit of the criminal law on an arms embargo conspicuously inaccurately.
I move to my central point: the issue of Sierra Leone policy, which has been seriously neglected. The Foreign Secretary spoke as if the British Government's policy was the most committed of any country towards the restoration of the democratic regime of President Kabbah. The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps not for the first time, was highly selective in his description. It applied to the period from March 1998 onwards, after President Kabbah was restored to power.
The following question is central to the debate: what was the British Government's policy between May 1997, when President Kabbah was ousted, and March 1998, when he was restored to power? That is the critical period for the purposes of the report.
The policy was established within a matter of weeks of the ousting of President Kabbah. As far as I am aware, the policy was stated for the very first time in the written answer that the Minister of State gave me on 11 July 1997, at column 625. It was the first time on which it was explained that the Government's policy was based on a peaceful solution to the crisis. That policy, having been stated, became set in stone. It was, of course, reflected in the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolution, and continued to be repeated right up to the point at which President Kabbah was restored to power.
The question that I have to ask is how realistic was that policy? Military juntas—particularly an extremely nasty military junta like the one in Sierra Leone—do not have a very good track record of going peacefully out of power, and that junta was absolutely no exception. After going through all the Legg documentation, I have seen not one piece of evidence that the British Government's policy of peaceful solution had any impact on the junta's policy. I do not believe that the policy ever had any chance of success. It was doomed to failure from the outset, and fail it did. President Kabbah was restored not because of British Government policy but in spite of British Government policy.
Some officials, of course, became increasingly concerned about whether the policy could be sustained. However, it was what Ministers decided to do. It was their policy; it was a cul-de-sac, leading nowhere.
If I make those criticisms, hon. Members are perfectly entitled to come back at me and ask, "What should the policy have been?" I do not agree with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney that there were only two options—either continue the policy of peaceful solution, or arm the Kamajors. The third option, which I believe is the one that should have been followed, was not to send in British troops—as I believe that there was absolutely no case for putting at risk in that particular theatre the lives of British service men and service women—but to give logistical and intelligence support to ECOMOG. It is the very policy that is now being followed.
As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made it clear, there was a significant point of difficulty in that policy. As we know, the difficulty was that ECOMOG was Nigerian-forces led. Moreover, we are talking now about the Nigeria of Abacha.
We have a Government who are committed to an ethical foreign policy. I say that with absolutely no disparagement. Ethical considerations are a very important dimension to all foreign policy, and formed part of the previous Government's foreign policy. Two ethical issues were in conflict in the matter. The Government had the option either of continuing with a policy that led nowhere, or of "swallowing the pill" in giving logistical and military support to ECOMOG and achieving their prime ethical objective: restoration of the democratically elected Government of President Kabbah. I believe that the latter option is the one that should have been followed.
Sadly beyond doubt is the fact that, in Sierra Leone, between May 1997 and March 1998, we saw—certainly not for the first time this century—something that has happened previously under both Conservative and Labour Governments: foreign policy being driven by wishful thinking, rather than by recognition of the harsh realities. Once again, it resulted in failure.

Ms Diane Abbott: I should like to touch on what the Select Committee's report reveals about issues in the relationship between Government and Select Committees. Although the debate has so far been more about implementation of policy rather than its substance—for which we might be criticised—policy implementation is key both to government and to the reality of government. A three-hour debate spent in examining those issues is therefore warranted.
Obscured by all the sound and fury surrounding the Select Committee's report is the fact that it was a Labour report, which every Labour member of the Committee, and our Liberal Democrat colleague on it, signed. Despite all the talk about partisanship and party political interests, the fact is that it was a Labour report—making it all the more remarkable that there was such fear of it, such a need to have sight of it before the embargo was lifted, and such a need to rubbish it precipitately. It really is extraordinary that a Labour report should excite so much antagonism from a Labour Government.
There never was a golden era in the relationship between Select Committees and Government. For eight years, I served on the Treasury Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of a series of Tory Chairmen. Let us be quite clear that the previous Government could be just as ruthless and manipulative in their relationship with Select Committees as the Government have been in the past 18 months.
There never was a golden era in the relationship. None the less, when a Government have the majority that my Government have, and when—with the greatest respect to my colleagues—an Opposition are as weak as the current one, the role of Select Committees, as part of the system of checks and balances and of scrutiny, deserves, and perhaps currently is, receiving, far greater emphasis than before.
When a Government have a large majority and a command and control attitude to governance, Select Committees should play a key role in acting as a check and a balance, and in enabling Government policy to be subject to proper scrutiny and examination.
One criticism of the Foreign Affairs Committee was that it produced its report with the benefit of hindsight. I tell Ministers that producing reports in that manner is the exact role of Select Committees. They should consider past events and draw conclusions—which is what the Foreign Affairs Committee quite correctly did in its report.
In the Treasury Committee, we had our fair share of gut-wrenchingly sycophantic Government questioners of Ministers. We had our fair share of reports containing rather bland recommendations, because party political conflicts could not be resolved. We had our fair share also of Chairmen who turned up on the "Today" programme to act as apologists for the Government. However, in that Committee, certainly in the eight years that I served on it, we were always clear about the fact that we were a Committee of the House. We were not an arm of Government.
I should add that, although some things happened in that Select Committee that should not have happened, I served under several Tory Chairmen who were scrupulous in not using their chairmanship to act as apologists for the Government. As a Committee—which included some interesting characters—we were always clear that we were our own Committee, that we were a Committee of the House and that we chose our own agenda. Although some of the recommendations in our reports were fudged, they were always—throughout the Parliaments in which we served—substantial reports in which we made clear arguments.
At the beginning of this Parliament, I was removed from the Treasury Committee. Why? I do not know. Perhaps it was felt that, as I had served on it for eight


years, I might just be capable of making a speech on Treasury matters without a brief from Millbank. Of course, that would never do.

Mr. Mackinlay: It will be the Catering Committee for you next.

Ms Abbott: Perhaps, if I am here after the next general election. However, as long as I am an hon. Member, I intend to fulfil my role as an independent Back Bencher.
I was removed from the Treasury Committee and appointed to the Foreign Affairs Committee, under the very distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). However, as soon as I was appointed to the Foreign Affairs Committee—despite the manifold experience, expertise and brilliance of my colleagues—I sensed in the air something that was very different from the atmosphere in which the Treasury Committee had operated. It was the notion that, in some sense, the Foreign Affairs Committee was a branch of the Foreign Office. During my first few weeks on the Select Committee I was charmed and delighted that the entire Committee was called to lunch with the Foreign Secretary. In my eight years on the Treasury Committee we had never been called to lunch with a Treasury Minister. We all trooped into lunch and the Foreign Secretary gave us the benefit of his views on what we should be doing. It turned out that he thought that we should be travelling to far-flung corners of the globe and staying there and building good personal relationships with obscure Wisconsin Congressmen.
I was interested to hear the Foreign Secretary's views on what the Select Committee should be doing, but I was not entirely clear what business it was of his. I am afraid that it was my voice that piped up at that lunch, as it has at many subsequent Committee meetings, to say to the Foreign Secretary, "We are a Committee of the House and it is not clear to me why you are giving us the benefit of your thoughts on what we should be doing."
That is not a criticism of any colleagues or even of any Ministers, but I just caught in the air a sense that the Committee was some sort of branch of the Foreign Office and that we were good for entertaining 10th ranking dignitaries from obscure central European states and that was about it. Having served for eight years on a different sort of Select Committee, I came to the Foreign Affairs Committee with the clear notion that, above all, we had to struggle for our independence and to be taken seriously.
It is not enough for colleagues to wail about the Sierra Leone affair and about the fact that the Tories are making political capital out of it. What on earth are we to expect Tories to do? It is their job. Ministers must understand why they are back on the Floor of the House two years after the event having to answer for their activities.
Some unkind members on the committee—not me or my colleagues—refer to some of the Ministers' aides-de-camp as Haldeman and Erlichman. I will not do that today. If one asks Ministers—even if one were to ask Haldeman and Erlichman—they will say that this issue has run on because the Tories are making political capital. Hello, what are the Opposition supposed to do? If they are asked again, they might say that someone is a troublemaker or that someone is bitter because he or she

is not a Minister. The one thing that Ministers and their aides-de-camp will not address is the very real issue about the relationship between the Executive and the legislature that has been raised in the long-running battle between the Select Committee and the Government.
For as long as they content themselves with ad hominem attacks, things will not change. I was telephoned by a journalist yesterday who told me that people at the Foreign Office have an arsenal of personal information that they want to release about me as part of a fight-back against the Foreign Affairs Committee. I must tell the House—it is no big secret—that, since having my son seven years ago, I have led a private life of stupefying dullness, but I wish them luck in their attempt. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) may laugh.
The problem that Ministers have with the Select Committee does not concern individuals, and it is not about bad luck or about the Opposition wilfully doing what they are supposed to do, which is to oppose. It is their own unwillingness to recognise that Select Committees have a right, an obligation and a duty to act independently. They have a duty to determine their own agenda. On Sierra Leone, the Select Committee had a duty to produce the report that it did. It was wrong and provocative of Ministers to imply that we did not need to produce the report, that we discovered nothing new and that the report was in some sense worthless. That is not the way to build a constructive relationship with the Select Committee.
Much has been said about the content of the report, which is important, but my argument to the House and to Labour colleagues is that if Ministers learn nothing by having to turn up and answer for themselves so long after the event, they must learn something about the right way to conduct relationships with the legislature. Select Committees are not an arm of Government. I shall touch on some of the pressure points of the relationship between Select Committees and the Government on which it is worth my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench reflecting.
Under this Government—it is not a new phenomenon, but it is intensified—we have seen an attempt to make the Whips Office writ run inside Select Committee meetings. We have had undue interference—it is passed now but I want to put it on the record—about who should be the Chair of Select Committees. I served on the Treasury Committee for eight years. During every Parliament we got winks and nods about who the usual channels had agreed should be the Chair. Twice running, my Select Committee ignored those winks and nods and we made our own choice. The Whips knew that they could advise, hint and suggest, but they could not make us appoint a Chair whom we did not want. I know of a Select Committee—it was not mine—where the Labour Whips went as far as holding a meeting inside the Committee Room prior to the Committee's first meeting. They had a vote on who should be Chairman and bound Labour Members to it in order to ram through the Chair of their choice.
Another issue—I have mentioned it but I will raise it again—is the notion that the Government can determine what Select Committees can or should investigate. It is for Select Committees to decide what to investigate. It is not proper for Ministers to maintain pressure on Select Committees saying, "We do not think that you should be


investigating this. Anybody who votes for investigating this is an enemy of the regime". That is not proper and it is not an aid to good government.

Sir John Stanley: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady. Does she agree that, on this occasion, the Chairmen designate of Select Committees were announced by her party before the Select Committees had even met?

Ms Abbott: I am always very careful about what I say on the Floor of the House. I was not present at the meeting of the parliamentary Labour party where that was done. Labour colleagues who were present might want to comment.
I have talked about a concerted effort to make the Whips writ run in the Select Committee. That is wholly improper and undermines the basis on which Select Committees operate. I have talked about an attempt to determine what Select Committees can inquire into. Finally, the Foreign Affairs Committee suffered ad nauseam from people, presumably loyal to their Government, seeking to advance the Government's cause not by engaging in the arguments that the Select Committee is making, but by rubbishing the work of the Select Committee and the individuals who serve on it. Where has it got people? It has meant that two years later individuals are having to account for themselves on the Floor of the House.
It was a privilege to serve on the Treasury Committee and it is a privilege to serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have had the honour of serving under a number of distinguished Chairs, including the current Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Government see Select Committees as an irritant, an obstacle and a problem that must somehow be brought under the command and control structure. I believe that Select Committees can enhance the work of the Government. I believe that they can help to make government more transparent and more accountable and be a factor in producing better government. After all, is not better government what we are all about?

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) have made clear the effective role of Select Committees under the previous Government.
Before I begin my remarks I want to follow a hare that was set running by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). He made a disgraceful allegation that has wide currency in the Scott affair and the arms to Iraq affair. He said that Ministers under the previous Government were prepared to see innocent business men go to prison. That is absolutely and totally untrue. When the defence in a criminal trial have discovery of documents, if those documents are classified, it is the duty of Ministers to sign public interest immunity certificates, in the knowledge that the judge in the case will see the documents and reach a conclusion as to whether they are pertinent to the defence. If they are, they will be given to the defence. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is a fair man, does not believe that Ministers for whom I worked—I have direct knowledge of the issue—would have contemplated putting themselves in such a position.
Last Wednesday, when the Foreign Secretary made his latest statement on Sierra Leone, I did not catch Madam Speaker's eye. The right hon. Gentleman challenged Ministers from the previous Government to say that they had not seen early copies of Select Committee reports.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Madam Speaker has made a ruling that I have reiterated: we should not talk about the leak. It has been mentioned in passing, but we should not talk about it. We should just talk about the motion and the amendment before us.

Mr. Blunt: I wanted to refer to it in passing, simply to say that under the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should take my advice and deal with the motion. The House knows what to do.

Mr. Blunt: Under the tenure of the previous Foreign Secretary, a Rolls-Royce Department performed as a Rolls-Royce. It did not stagger from one own goal to the next. The permanent under-secretary was generally happy in the discharge of his duties. There were no rumours of Sir John Coles saying that he would not go before a Committee of the House again to cover up for his ministerial masters after yet another mauling from the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Insley: There have already been two or three references during the debate to the Scott report and the Pergau dam inquiry. How can the hon. Gentleman say that under the previous Government the Foreign Office did not have problems and crises?

Mr. Blunt: Let us make the comparison. The Foreign Secretary has been in office for as long as his predecessor was. Under his predecessor, the Foreign Office dealt with issues such as the Hong Kong handover, the intergovernmental conference and the Bosnia Dayton accord, to name but three. It did not stagger from one crisis to the next. There were not controversies week after week over foreign affairs.
Why has the conduct of foreign policy changed? Why has the Rolls-Royce of a Department been reduced to an old banger, in the words of the Chairman of the Select Committee? The answer is ministerial leadership. That goes to the heart of the objective of new Labour—to be all things to all men. As soon as he came to office, the Foreign Secretary launched his ethical dimension to foreign policy. The contradictions were immediately and cruelly exposed on exports to Indonesia and on Kashmir. There was no suggestion under the previous Foreign Secretary of a state visit becoming a foreign policy disaster.
Even in opposition, when the right hon. Gentleman addressed a meeting of largely Indian British citizens in Southall he told them that Kashmir was part of India. He was received with cheers. When the point was put to him afterwards, he denied it. Unfortunately—

Mr. Gapes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been looking at the Select Committee report, but I


cannot see any reference to Kashmir. Is it in order to have a debate on Kashmir when we are supposed to be debating Sierra Leone?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): It is the responsibility of the hon. Member who is speaking to debate the motion that is before the House.

Mr. Blunt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am debating the conduct of foreign policy that has led to this shambles over Sierra Leone and goodness knows how many others. Policy towards Kashmir is a classic example of the Government's desire to be all things to all men. That is why they are incapable of giving leadership and why a Rolls-Royce of a Department has ended up as an old banger. Kashmir is a good example. The Foreign Secretary had to backtrack from what he said to an Indian audience in Southall. The Pakistani high commissioner then had to go to the Labour party conference in Blackpool to write Labour's policy statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman returned to the subject of Sierra Leone.

Mr. Blunt: In returning to the subject of Sierra Leone, perhaps I could touch on other areas, such as the Gulf and Kosovo, on which the Government do not have means and ends aligned in a way that will result in the execution of British foreign policy. Sierra Leone is a classic example of the Government willing the ends but not the means. The Government's policy was the peaceful restoration of the Kabbah Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling elegantly explained why that policy could not succeed. Peter Penfold knew that. Tim Spicer knew that. President Kabbah knew that. The United Nations legal secretariat knew that when it interpreted Security Council resolution 1132.
The first failure of ministerial leadership was the fact that resolution 1132 sought to be all things to all men and could be interpreted differently by United Nations legal advisers in New York and legal advisers for the Foreign Office. The problem was drafted into an international text because the Government attempted to be all things to all men.
The practitioners knew the harsh truth that only military force would remove an unpleasant military junta from rule in Sierra Leone. The Minister denied that reality. His repeatedly expressed visceral distaste for private military companies spoke volumes about his inability to face the facts about what was required to restore the situation in Sierra Leone.
The irony is that Sandline was central to President Kabbah's restoration to power in early 1998. The December attack by ECOMOG failed. Only when ECOMOG had the benefit of the decent military advice and staff planning supplied by Sandline under contract from President Kabbah was its subsequent attack on Freetown a success.
There was confusion throughout the Government about the objectives. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development is on the Front Bench at the moment. His Department gave £250,000 for communications equipment to President Kabbah during

his exile. That equipment was used to broadcast invitations to the Kamajors in Sierra Leone to rise up in military revolt, in contradiction of the stated British policy of peaceful restoration of the Government. The confusion sown by ministerial leadership had the absurd result of a company that had briefed Ministers in London and the high commissioner on the ground being investigated by other officials of the Crown.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunt: I do not have time.
The cavilling, confused language in Security Council resolution 1132, typical of policy pursued by the Government, started them on the road to trouble. The hand-wringing, stuttering uncertainty in dealing with that difficult, bloody situation that has been characteristic of the Minister's handling has led to the problems. The delivery of the humanitarian, democratic and British interest was obstructed by the Government's agonies over the means that they needed to adopt to secure the ends.
The Government endorsed the end, but they were not prepared to face up to the means. No wonder Peter Penfold and Sandline were confused about the Government's position. They were the heroes of the shambles—people who were prepared to act to achieve the agreed and desirable objective. The Prime Minister endorsed Peter Penfold when he first became aware of the affair.
Peter Penfold and Sandline pursued their goals through a sea of cavilling Ministers and officials, few of whom acted with courage and decisiveness, or accepted responsibility. The primary objective of Ministers and many officials has been to cover their backs. That characterised the Foreign Secretary's handling of the reports. The horrifying harshness of what was happening in Sierra Leone was accompanied by Ministers trying to face in all directions at once.
Since 1 May 1997, the Foreign Office has had disastrous personal leadership from Ministers. That is why the Rolls-Royce has been reduced to the status of an old banger. The Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), should consider their positions.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I in no way underestimate the cycle of violence in Sierra Leone. Some hon. Members have sought to diminish our interest in the plight of the people in that country. We say that the situation is desperate, and any effort to relieve the suffering of the people of Sierra Leone will be supported by Conservative Members.
The contributions to this debate have been well-informed and have shown care and diligence. We have heard distinguished contributions from my right hon. Friends the Members for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling made a superb speech and went into the details of the Government's contortions and the flaws in their policy towards Sierra Leone.
Even more telling, though, were the contributions from Government Members. The hon. Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney


(Mr. Rowlands)—distinguished members of the Select Committee—seemed very willing to wound the beast but not to deliver the coup de grace; but the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) proved once again her superb independence. If she will permit me, I will pay her a compliment: she is charming but lethal.
I am sorry that we did not have more time to accommodate all the hon. Members who wanted to contribute. We have spent three hours debating one of the most scathing reports ever published by a Select Committee on the workings of a Department.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): The hon. Lady has not been here very long.

Mrs. Gillan: I have been here long enough to know a Government who are a shambles when I see one, and in the past two years my eyes have certainly been opened by the Labour Government.
The Select Committee report was compiled in what could almost be described as a hostile environment. It says:
Our inquiry has given a unique insight into the working, or lack of working in this case, of the FCO machine.
The report goes on to say:
It has exposed even further a story which the FCO would have preferred not to have had besmirch its reputation.
The Foreign Secretary did not want the report to see the light of day but, thanks to the Committee's determination, it has been published and the whole House can draw its conclusions on the sorry affair from both the Select Committee report and the Legg report.
The reputation of the Foreign Office has indeed been besmirched, and the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) have betrayed the trust placed in them, that they would at the very least conduct the foreign affairs of this country in a competent fashion, finish the paperwork and deal in whole truths, not half-truths: a trust that we can, sadly, no longer place safely in them.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) spelled out the main indictments. Like him, I will not dwell on the serious questions of integrity raised by the revelation that the Foreign Secretary, by foul means rather than fair, received four weeks' advance warning of the content of the Select Committee report—that will be investigated by others, as Madam Speaker said—but I will reiterate the specific criticisms that Ministers have sought to brush off and evade in another fine example of the "Not me, guv" society, as practised to perfection by the Government.
At first, the Government tried to frustrate the work of the Committee, as the hon. Member for Swansea, East and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon said. The report says:
The Committee's interest in Sierra Leone continued, but was impeded"—
yes, impeded—
by the refusal of the Government to release to the Committee, firstly telegrams concerning Sierra Leone and secondly … the information which fell within the ambit of the Legg inquiry.

When the Committee's persistence prevailed, Ministers yet again sought to impede its progress.
The report states:
We have again encountered some frustrations. Our original request to hear three of the officials involved in the affair was met by a proposal that we should take evidence from only one of them.
In the end, a compromise of taking evidence from two officials was agreed on.
The Committee's request to see relevant intelligence reports and take evidence—in private—from the head of the Secret Intelligence Service was refused. Is that open government, or an ethical position? No. The report says:
This sounds very much like a Minister determined to defend his own position.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon said, the contrast with the attitudes of other Departments is striking. The Chief of Defence Intelligence was allowed to appear before the Committee, and the director general of the Security Service was allowed to brief the Home Affairs Committee. Even the hon. Member for Swansea, East condemned the lack of access afforded to his Committee. I leave the House to draw its own inevitable conclusions about the Foreign Secretary's actions and whether they were designed to help or to obstruct the inquiry.
Ministers would prefer to interpret the reports as laying the blame at the door of officials. The Foreign Secretary said:
I would perfectly happily accept any criticisms of myself … but there are none."—[Official Report, 27 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 28.]
That really will not wash. Even the Legg report concludes that
the officials concerned were working hard and conscientiously, and should not be judged too harshly.
Officials made mistakes, no doubt, but so did Ministers. The Select Committee report concludes that the Government's policy on the arms embargo was stated in a way that could mislead Parliament, the public and even the Foreign Office's own staff into thinking that the arms embargo applied only to one side of the warring factions: the junta.
The Legg report lays the blame squarely at the Government's door, saying that it is the Government's responsibility to give citizens, and even their own officials, a reasonable explanation of the laws that they make under delegated powers, especially when those laws create a serious criminal offence: in this case, an offence punishable by up to seven years' imprisonment.
The Legg report says that no such explanation was given. Instead, the impression was given in communications that the embargo applied only to the junta. As Legg concludes, British officials and Ministers
continued to play this aspect down.
Ministers patently failed to give a clear and full explanation, preferring to deal in half-truths, not whole truths.
If we need further confirmation of that, we need look only as far as the Foreign Secretary, who said, of the telegram that advised key diplomatic staff of the extent of the arms embargo, that it was
quite plainly wrong that this telegram did not make it clearer what was the full scope of the resolution.


I hope that the Minister will deal with the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and tell us what his response is to the Foreign Secretary telling us that his answer of 12 March was "quite plainly wrong".
The Committee report reinforces ministerial culpability when it refers to the Foreign Office's dealings with Sandline. By way of a final indictment of ministerial behaviour, it says that
many of the problems which occurred would not have done so … If Ministers had made their policy on dealing with mercenaries clearer to officials.
What picture do we paint of Foreign Office Ministers and their competence? It is a very sorry picture of bungling and buck passing. We have a Foreign Secretary who does not finish the paperwork; a Foreign Secretary who deals in the dangerous commodity of half-truths, and is quite content to do so; a Foreign Secretary who should hang his head in shame, but who could not even come to the Dispatch Box today to utter one word of apology for the mess over which he has presided. As his own permanent under-secretary put it:
The revelation of this mess, which is not a pretty sight, has not been a very enjoyable experience.
He is a master of understatement.
The Foreign Secretary and his Ministers are, and should be, accountable to this House for their policies and their Department's actions. The Foreign Secretary has shown today that he is too arrogant to accept that responsibility, and that "sorry" is a word sadly lacking from his vocabulary. That should be a matter of grave concern in all quarters of this House.
What a shambles—our once-proud foreign service has been brought to its knees after less than two years by a group of incompetent and arrogant Ministers. We are supposed to have an ethical foreign policy, yet by the handling of the Select Committee report and its endeavours to inquire into the facts surrounding the Sierra Leone affair, and through the lack of respect for the responsibilities of this House, the Foreign Secretary has shown that he does not know the meaning of the word ethical.
The Foreign Secretary is a man with a mindset; a man who believes that nothing is his fault; who says that if there is fault, it is not his; a man who obstructs investigation and resists all criticism so that he fails completely to see the chaos that he leaves around him. Tonight we are, first, asking Ministers to take responsibility for their actions—and I hope that the Minister will use the word "sorry" in his speech tonight—and, secondly, demonstrating our support for the Select Committee and its report. I ask all right-minded hon. Members to do the same, and to demonstrate their belief in the Select Committee system and it scrutinising role by voting with us tonight. We believe that the Select Committee was right, and its report catalogues an extended episode of incompetence by the Government. By this report, the Government stand rightly condemned.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): Into my constituency advice bureau a couple of weeks ago came a woman—a British

resident, who is from Sierra Leone. She told me a story about her husband, who had custody of their two children and was living in Sierra Leone. It was reported that he had been found on the streets of Freetown with his stomach shot out. He was alive and taken to hospital, but subsequently died. Obviously, her concern was a human one, and my concern for her, as my constituent, was a human one.
Another constituent received news recently of his two daughters in Sierra Leone. One, aged 15, and her aunt—who was looking after her—were the victims of a mass rape by members of the junta. She was then physically abused. The other sister is now missing in that country, and there is no trace of her. I can tell the House many stories of similar atrocities.
The Opposition claimed to talk about Sierra Leone today. However, the shadow Foreign Secretary—in a speech of nearly 20 minutes—spent a little over one minute on the issue of Sierra Leone. That is simply not doing justice to this House, or to any concept of British foreign policy.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said that the Opposition would support the Government on those occasions when our policy was designed to relieve human suffering. However, in the years between the coup taking place in Sierra Leone and President Kabbah moving back to Sierra Leone, no questions were tabled by the official Opposition—except for one, tabled by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on speaking for the whole Conservative party for all that time.
As no party politics were involved, the shadow Foreign Secretary had no policy at all. That is the reality. I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to come to the Dispatch Box any time during my speech—but with this proviso. Will he make clear why his party tabled one question relating to policy specific to Sierra Leone, and many questions on matters of purely party political interest? Will he also say whether he endorses the views of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt)—who, at least, spoke a little about Sierra Leone?
Sadly, the hon. Member for Reigate talked entirely about supporting the role of mercenaries. Does the policy of the Conservative party, now it is in opposition, depend on the espousal of the use of mercenaries—people who have destroyed Sierra Leone and parts of west Africa; ripped the diamonds out of that area; killed those whom they are paid to kill; and worked on either side?

Mr. Keith Simpson: Disgraceful!

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is quite right—it is disgraceful. It is disgraceful that the hon. Member for Reigate could make such a speech in this House.
During their period of control of Sierra Leone the rebels received no condemnation from the Opposition. Now, when they have been fighting a bitter campaign—abusing and maiming citizens—no criticism has been made in public by the Opposition. Does that not matter to the shadow Foreign Secretary? Does it not matter to the Opposition? During this debate, Conservative Members have, in total, spoken for well over an hour. Comments relating to Sierra Leone have totalled a little over seven minutes. That is what they are reduced to.
I normally admire the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), but he dwelt very little on the substantive issues of Sierra Leone. I shall remember that in future when he wants to take a high moral tone.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am not concerned with taking a high moral tone. I repeat what I said in my speech; I have already written to the Foreign Secretary, making exactly the point about the need to deal with Sierra Leone, both now and in the future.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I look forward to that letter and to support from, at least, the Liberal Democrats, for our policy.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling said that our policy could not succeed. When President Kabbah returned to Freetown last year, he spoke about three countries in particular which had given exemplary support to his regime, kept him going through the dark days and allowed him to return to his own country and lead a democratic Government. Britain was one of those countries—and, I must say, Nigeria was another.
When General Abacha was the military dictator in Nigeria—doing things that we could not or would not want to work alongside—there was no question of our supporting Nigerian military intervention in Sierra Leone. That ought to have been unthinkable. I make no apology for that. I make no apology for the fact that our objectives were the restoration of democracy in Sierra Leone and to secure the return of the democratically elected President to Sierra Leone.
I make no apology for the fact that we did not seek to do that with the intervention of Sandline. Sandline, as numerous people have said, is an irrelevance to the issue. Sandline—quite literally—was a sideline; a political convenience for the shadow Foreign Secretary, but a total irrelevance.

Mr. Howard: The Minister of State has told us what he is not apologising for. Will he now apologise for the answer that he gave the House on 12 March using precisely the same language as that which was described by the Foreign Secretary as quite "plainly wrong"?

Mr. Lloyd: The shadow Foreign Secretary is hardly the person to speak about half-truths, even in his last comments. Let me make two things clear. First, I answered no questions; I made a speech. I did so when President Kabbah's Government were already reinstated in Freetown. I spoke about the role that Britain had played. I spoke, rightly, about the way in which we helped to restrict arms to the rebels. For that, I make no apology.
Secondly, let me tell the shadow Foreign Secretary something that he did not mention, although the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling seemed to know this. Not long afterwards, we were instrumental in having the Security Council resolution changed to allow the supply to the legal and democratic Government. I make no apology for that.

Mr. Howard: Before the Security Council resolution was changed, the embargo applied to everyone connected with Sierra Leone, including President Kabbah's regime.

On 12 March the Minister told the House that the embargo was aimed at the junta—precisely the language that the Foreign Secretary said was quite "plainly wrong".
Will the Minister of State address that point and apologise to the House for the quite plainly wrong answer that he gave on 12 March?

Mr. Lloyd: That has obviously been a year's work for the shadow Foreign Secretary. I know that he is a talented lawyer, but he is not a very talented shadow Foreign Secretary. Let me help him a little. He got no support from his hon. Friends in the debate, except for one other Conservative speaker.
The real question is whether the Government at any stage misled in a way that was germane. I quote the conclusion of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which stated:
It is the view of the Committee that Mr. Spicer should have known the law about arms sales to Sierra Leone.
The Select Committee is quite clear about that. The central charge of the shadow Foreign Secretary's case is not sustained by the report that he is praying in aid in the motion against the Government. That is how little credibility he has.

Mr. Howard: I shall try again, for the third or fourth time. It is a perfectly simple, straightforward question. The Minister of State told the House on 12 March that the embargo was aimed at the junta. The Foreign Secretary said that that language was quite "plainly wrong". He said that of language that was identical to that used by the Minister of State. Will the Minister now deal with the matter and apologise for the fact that the answer that he gave the House on 12 March was quite plainly wrong?

Mr. Lloyd: Let me remind the shadow Foreign Secretary that I asked him to undertake to make certain comments of his own if he rose to speak at the Dispatch Box, which he signally failed to do. Nevertheless, I shall answer the question.
That statement was not wrong. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already made it clear once today that his comment was made in an entirely different context. That is the point. The shadow Foreign Secretary knows that he is dealing in half-truths. He is dealing in lawyers' words. He knows that he has no credibility outside the House when he speaks about Sierra Leone.

Mr. Mackinlay: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: I shall say a little about what the British Government have been trying to achieve over recent months. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what we have been trying to achieve in the context of Sierra Leone.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife said that the extra £10 million was comparable to the sum that Sandline was prepared to provide. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Sandline had no moneys of its own—it would have been paid through the mineral wealth of Sierra Leone. That was no act of grace by a military organisation, but a commercial transaction to steal that country's diamonds. We had no intention of dealing with mercenaries or with the expropriation of the mineral wealth of a poor country such as Sierra Leone.
The £10 million for Sierra Leone announced by the Foreign Secretary today is on top of the £24 million that has already been committed, and the £20 million that has been given for emergency aid, health care, education and to rebuild the shattered infrastructure of that country. It is on top of the £2 million given before Christmas and a further £2 million given since that time to ECOMOG for logistical support to make sure that Ghanaian troops are there fighting with Nigerian troops, and to make sure that they have the intelligence and communications to prosecute the war properly. We have partners in ECOMOG in whom we have trust.
That is why we have made that commitment. That is why, if President Kabbah were to comment on the Governments from whom he has received support, Britain would rank high on the list. Britain has been pulling its weight and wants Sierra Leone to be secure. Britain is committed to the restoration of democracy. The Government have been responsible for that.

Mr. Mackinlay: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: This has been an interesting debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] It has revealed to us a shadow Foreign Secretary who has plenty of personal animus, but no policy whatever, and who cannot take the trouble to debate the real issues associated with Sierra Leone, beyond the party political debate.
The Government will not apologise. We believe in democracy in Africa and seek to build that process. Along with our partners, we seek to ensure that the values of human rights—an ethical dimension to foreign policy—is at the core. The House will consider carefully the speeches that we have heard from the Opposition, and the Opposition motion, and will reject it.

Mr. Mackinlay: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a point of order? I understand that he does not. The Question is, That the original words stand part of the Question.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you inform me what time limit there is on the debate? If an hon. Member rises, it seems to me that he has the right to speak. There is no time limit, and he ought to be recognised.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is customary in the House, when we have had a full debate and hon. Members on both Front Benches have wound up, to put the Question to the House. That is what I intend to do.

Sir Peter Emery: I understand only too well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that certain procedures in the House are agreed by both sides. However, on an Opposition Day, it is for the Opposition to choose when the Division is to be called. If an hon. Member wants to speak, I believe that under Standing Orders he has the right so to do. He should be given that right, which is the right of any Back Bencher.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Mackinlay, are you insistent that you wish to speak?

Mr. Mackinlay: In view of the adversarial nature of the debate, I wanted to ask the Minister, and perhaps he

might respond, about recommendation 29 of the report, which urges the British Government to take initiatives at the United Nations, in the European Union and in Parliament to outlaw mercenaries operating from this country. I listened carefully to the Foreign Secretary and I do not think he said that that recommendation had been adopted. It would have been welcome if the Minister had said that the United Kingdom would take initiatives on the strength of that recommendation.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 336.

Division No. 83]
[7.10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Fearn, Ronnie


Allan, Richard
Flight, Howard


Amess, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Foster, Don (Bath)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fraser, Christopher


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Gale, Roger


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Garnier, Edward


Baker, Norman
Gill, Christopher


Ballard, Jackie
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Beggs, Roy
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Gray, James


Bercow, John
Green, Damian


Blunt, Crispin
Grieve, Dominic


Body, Sir Richard
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Boswell, Tim
Hague, Rt Hon William


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hammond, Philip


Brady, Graham
Harris, Dr Evan


Brake, Tom
Harvey, Nick


Brazier, Julian
Hawkins, Nick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Heald, Oliver


Browning, Mrs Angela
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Burnett, John
Horam, John


Burstow, Paul
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cash, William
Hunter, Andrew


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael



Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Chidgey, David
Jenkin, Bernard


Chope, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clappison, James



Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Key, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)



Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Collins, Tim
Kirkwood, Archy


Colvin, Michael
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lansley, Andrew


Cotter, Brian
Leigh, Edward


Cran, James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lidington, David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Duncan, Alan
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Duncan Smith, Iain
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Evans, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Madel, Sir David


Faber, David
Major, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Fallon, Michael
Maples, John






Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Syms, Robert


May, Mrs Theresa
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moore, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Norman, Archie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Oaten, Mark
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, William


Page, Richard
Townend, John


Paice, James
Tredinnick, David


Paterson, Owen
Trend, Michael


Pickles, Eric
Tyler, Paul


Prior, David
Tyrie, Andrew


Randall, John
Viggers, Peter


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Walter, Robert


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Wardle, Charles


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Webb, Steve


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Welsh, Andrew


Ruffley, David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Whittingdale, John


St Aubyn, Nick
Wilkinson, John


Sanders, Adrian
Willetts, David


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Willis, Phil


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Woodward, Shaun


Soames, Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Spring, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Steen, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Streeter, Gary
Mr. Stephen Day and


Swayne, Desmond
Mrs. Caroline Spelman.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cann, Jamie


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Caplin, Ivor


Ainger, Nick
Casale, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caton, Martin


Allen, Graham
Cawsey, Ian


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Chaytor, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clapham, Michael


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Austin, John
Coaker, Vernon


Barnes, Harry
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barron, Kevin
Cohen, Harry


Battle, John
Coleman, Iain


Bayley, Hugh
Colman, Tony


Beard, Nigel
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Begg, Miss Anne
Cooper, Yvette


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbett, Robin


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benton, Joe
Corston, Ms Jean


Bermingham, Gerald
Cousins, Jim


Berry, Roger
Cranston, Ross


Best, Harold
Crausby, David


Betts, Clive
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blackman, Liz
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cummings, John


Blizzard, Bob
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boateng, Paul
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Borrow, David



Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire


Browne, Desmond
Dalyell, Tam


Buck, Ms Karen
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Burden, Richard
Darvill, Keith


Burgon, Colin
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Davidson, Ian


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Dawson, Hilton





Dean, Mrs Janet
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Denham, John



Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank



Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Drew, David
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Drown, Ms Julia
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Edwards, Huw
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Efford, Clive
Kidney, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ennis, Jeff
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Etherington, Bill
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fisher, Mark
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Laxton, Bob


Flint, Caroline
Lepper, David


Flynn, Paul
Leslie, Christopher


Follett, Barbara
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Linton, Martin


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Livingstone, Ken


Foulkes, George
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fyfe, Maria
Lock, David


Galloway, George
Love, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
McAllion, John


Gardiner, Barry
McAvoy, Thomas


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McCabe, Steve


Gerrard, Neil
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McDonagh, Siobhain


Godman, Dr Norman A
McDonnell, John


Godsiff, Roger
McFall, John


Goggins, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Golding, Mrs Llin
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McNamara, Kevin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNulty, Tony


Grocott, Bruce
MacShane, Denis


Grogan, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gunnell, John
McWalter, Tony


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mallaber, Judy


Hanson, David
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marek, Dr John


Healey, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Heppell, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Hill, Keith
Martlew, Eric


Hinchliffe, David
Maxton, John


Hoey, Kate
Meale, Alan


Home Robertson, John
Merron, Gillian


Hoon, Geoffrey
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hope, Phil
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Miller, Andrew


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moffatt, Laura


Howells, Dr Kim
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morley, Elliot


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hurst, Alan
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hutton, John
Mountford, Kali


Illsley, Eric
Mudie, George


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mullin, Chris


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jamieson, David
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jenkins, Brian
Norris, Dan


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)






O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Hara, Eddie
Spellar, John


Olner, Bill
Squire, Ms Rachel


O'Neill, Martin
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Steinberg, Gerry


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stevenson, George


Pearson, Ian
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pendry, Tom
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Perham, Ms Linda
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pike, Peter L
Stott, Roger


Plaskitt, James
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pollard, Kerry
Stringer, Graham


Pope, Greg
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pound, Stephen
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Powell, Sir Raymond
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prosser, Gwyn
Temple—Morris, Peter


Purchase, Ken
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Quinn, Lawrie
Timms, Stephen


Radice, Giles
Tipping, Paddy


Rapson, Syd
Touhig, Don


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Trickett, Jon


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Truswell, Paul


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rooney, Terry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rowlands, Ted
Walley, Ms Joan


Ruane, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Ruddock, Joan
Watts, David


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
White, Brian


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wicks, Malcolm


Salter, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Savidge, Malcolm



Sawford, Phil
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Shaw, Jonathan
Wills, Michael


Sheerman, Barry
Wilson, Brian


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winnick, David


Shipley, Ms Debra
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wise, Audrey


Singh, Marsha
Wood, Mike


Skinner, Dennis
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wray, James


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mr. Mike Hall and


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mr. David Clelland.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the decision of the Foreign Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 1998–99 (HC 116) on Sierra Leone to commend the resolute support which the British Government is giving to the restoration of democracy in Sierra Leone and endorses the conclusion of the Legg Inquiry that no Minister had given encouragement or approval to any breach of the arms embargo on Sierra Leone; notes that the inquiry on Sierra Leone of the Foreign Affairs Committee has found no evidence of Ministerial encouragement or approval; and congratulates Her Majesty's Government on accepting all the recommendations of the Report of the Legg Inquiry and on the steps it has since taken to modernise management in the FCO.

Burdens on Schools

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I have to inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. David Willetts: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the bureaucratic burdens placed on schools by the Government which are seriously undermining schools' ability to run their own affairs; condemns the pursuit of uniformity at the expense of diversity; considers the Government's proposals for performance-related pay for teachers to be cumbersome and unworkable; believes the complicated process of bidding for centralised initiatives is fragmenting budgetary responsibility and has caused unacceptable delays in setting indicative budgets; and further believes that the Government's ceaseless flow of directives to schools and LEAs has become a significant obstacle to raising educational standards.
I begin by acknowledging the letter that I received yesterday from the Secretary of State, in which he explained that he would be unable to attend the debate because he is abroad on Government business. I accept that explanation and appreciate his having written to explain his absence.
We have tabled the motion because of the extraordinary shift in the mood of teachers, parents and pupils in the two years since the Labour Government were elected. When they were elected nearly two years ago, the Government undoubtedly had in their favour a fund of good will.

Mr. David Jamieson (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): We still have it.

Mr. Willetts: I hear the education Whip.
There were many people in education who believed that things could indeed only get better, but, in slightly less than two years, there has been a shift, from good will, to giving the Government the benefit of the doubt, to what can only be described as frustration and anger. According to the latest research—an independent survey for the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers—only 17 per cent. of teachers now support the Government's education policies, 58 per cent. are very dissatisfied, and 94 per cent. believe that teaching is becoming a less attractive profession to enter because of the Government's policies.
The problem is not only one for teachers—it is not as if some heroic battle is being fought in which, at the cost of teachers' good will, the Government are at least raising standards in schools. For the first time this year, we can see standards starting to fall: the pass rate in maths in primary schools fell from 62 per cent. reaching the average expected standard to 59 per cent.; and, in English, the increase from 62 to 64 per cent. is the smallest since tests began four years ago. There is widespread scepticism in the world of education about whether the Secretary of State will be able to achieve his targets for literacy and numeracy in 2002.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend think that the fact—which he so graphically demonstrated—that the teaching profession has lost faith in the Government might have something to do with the presence of so few Government Members here tonight,


which demonstrates that the Government do not really care about education, education, education, as they said before the election they did? Look how empty the Government Benches are.

Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is not education, education, education; the problem is regulation, regulation, regulation. That is why schools already doubt that they will be able to achieve the Government's targets for literacy and numeracy. Perhaps the Minister for School Standards will show solidarity with her boss tonight by making it clear that she, too, will resign if the Government do not achieve their targets for literacy and numeracy by 2002.

Mr. James Paice: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to read today's Order Paper? Not only does the motion rightly condemn the Government for over-regulation, but, to demonstrate the validity of that, there are five delegated legislation regulations, all to do with education, to be dealt with by the House at 10 o'clock tonight, without debate. If that does not demonstrate the validity of his case, I do not know what does.

Mr. Willetts: The burden of regulation and legislation which the Government are imposing on schools is quite simply unacceptable.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, in the middle of a debate, for a Government Whip to be going from row to row, handing out speeches to Government Members? Is that Government—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The movements of Government Whips are not a matter for the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Willetts: Last year, the Government sent 322 documents and directives to schools and local education authorities. The reason why they are unable to raise standards in our schools was put to me very simply by one head teacher who said, "I believe that David Blunkett is sincere when he talks about raising standards," but added, "The only way that I can raise standards in my school is by ignoring all the letters and instructions that I get sent by him and the Department for Education and Employment." Teachers and head teachers throughout the land are saying that that is the problem that they have to overcome.
The Government's interventions and initiatives, supposedly to raise education standards, are not part of the solution, but part of the problem. Look at what is happening in four crucial education areas. First, there was the class size pledge: no doubt, focus groups told the Labour party that small classes were popular, and said, "Why not make a pledge to reduce class sizes?" Once elected, the Labour Government set about implementing that pledge in the only way they know—by passing a law making it illegal to carry out an act of education in a class of more than 30 five, six or seven-year-olds.

That is the Government's approach to education issues—they do not think about the real world of education. They did not think of the increase in mixed-age classes that has resulted from the way in which the class size pledge has been implemented; nor of the successful schools that happily educate classes of more than 30 and deliver high standards. I hope that the Minister for School Standards will confirm that there are schools that achieve 100 per cent. success in literacy and numeracy while teaching five, six and seven-year-olds in classes of more than 30, and that those schools are willing to carry on doing that as long as they believe that they can deliver high-quality education.

Mrs. Angela Browning: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the Government did not think about issues such as vertical streaming and the effect on those in key stage 2 when they put the measure before the House in the School Standards and Framework Bill. I assure my hon. Friend that Opposition Members warned the Government time and time again in Committee—but they did not listen.

Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is quite right, and has been eloquent in exploring that point in Committee and subsequently. I think that the penny is beginning to drop. I refer to an account of the Prime Minister's first visit to one of the education roadshows following the launch of the Green Paper on teachers' pay. The article, which appeared in the journal of the NAS/UWT reports the Prime Minister as follows:
He said that it may be better to introduce a class assistant to a large class rather than reduce class size to below 30 with a single teacher".
That is a crucial point that we have put to Ministers time and time again. When there is per capita funding, if schools are forced to turn away children who would increase class sizes beyond 30, they must also turn away the accompanying funding. Schools are having to make teaching and classroom assistants redundant because of the Government's class size pledge. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the previous Government's record was sufficient when 40 per cent. of 11-year-olds did not attain adequate standards in English and maths? Does he believe that that was a good performance by the Conservatives, who now oppose this Government's efforts to put matters right?

Mr. Willetts: If that is a question from the Government Whip, I think that he could have done a little better. We support raising standards in schools. The problem is that the Government are getting in the way of that objective by imposing bureaucratic burdens on schools. Look at the way in which the Government implemented the literacy strategy. I shall quote from a letter from the chairman of the governing body of a school describing that school's experience in delivering the literacy strategy. He said:
The recent OFSTED inspection in January confirmed the high attainments in English, Maths and Science but showed concern that our rigid adherence to the literacy hour at Key Stage 1 may have contributed to the reduced level of challenge in English experienced by the more able pupils.


He continued—

Mr. Christopher Leslie: rose—

Mr. Willetts: I am quoting the comments of the chairman of a school's governing body and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen. He said:
We are … placed in the difficult position of having to question the extent to which our schemes of work should comply with the demands of the regulations when our previous approach generated clear benefits for our children, whatever their ability.

Mr. Leslie: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to scrap the literacy hour?

Mr. Willetts: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what our policy is. Instead of applying another indiscriminate initiative to all schools—however well they are doing—the Government should instead target the literacy strategy on schools that clearly have a problem. We do not believe in imposing an indiscriminate compulsory literacy hour that takes no account of how a school is performing in that area. If schools are delivering high literacy standards, it is not the role of the House or of politicians to go nosing into the classroom saying that those schools must stop teaching reading in a way that works simply because they have passed a regulation stating that it should be done differently. That is no way to raise standards in the classroom.
Let us look not just at the class size pledge or the literacy strategy, but at performance-related pay. The Government pride themselves on their public relations skills, but the debate on performance-related pay, initiated in the past few weeks, has been a shambles. The Government have been trying a hard cop, soft cop act—the trouble is that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister cannot seem to decide who is the hard cop and who is the soft cop. The Secretary of State described teachers as "snivelling cynics" while the Prime Minister praised their "awe-inspiring dedication". This is yet another intrusive, bureaucratic and heavy-handed method of trying to increase pay for teachers in the classroom.

Helen Jones: In light of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, would he care to comment on a recent opinion poll conducted for the NAS/UWT which revealed that 57 per cent. of teachers are in favour of linking pay to appraisal? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that teachers working in our schools are wrong?

Mr. Willetts: The hon. Lady knows very well—or she ought to know—that not one single representative body for teachers supports the Government's proposals for introducing performance-related pay. It does not matter what it says in the crib note from the Government Whip, the fact is that no teacher in the land will support a proposal that will cost £250 million in administration and in appointing external assessors before a single pound reaches the pay packet of a single teacher. That is the cost of the bureaucracy involved in the Government's proposals.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Did my hon. Friend note that the point raised by the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) was completely

irrelevant? It was very general and did not refer to the performance-related pay proposal. Under any system, pay is ultimately related to performance in some way.

Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the fact is that neither the NAS/UWT nor anyone else supports the proposal. We oppose it because it is cumbersome, bureaucratic and wasteful.

Mr. Derek Twigg: If the system is so wasteful and wrong, why did the previous Government introduce performance-related pay into the civil service, including the Department for Education and Employment?

Mr. Willetts: We are talking about the largest single performance-related pay scheme to be introduced anywhere in the world. Its scope and its intricacy go way beyond any arrangements that we introduced into the civil service or elsewhere. The fact is that it simply will not work. As the Government are so proud of the 16,000 responses that they have received to their consultation document—there are doubtless many more to come—will the Minister concede that it will clearly be impossible to introduce the first stage of performance-related pay this autumn? The Government should at least delay implementation in order to consider the legitimate criticisms levelled by teachers who say that the measure will be an extraordinary waste of time for teachers and head teachers.
It has been estimated that, in a large secondary school with perhaps more than 100 teachers, a head teacher could spend half a day a week simply doing the external appraisals that will be required by the Government's cumbersome and complicated scheme. What about finance? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Government Front Benchers must not keep interrupting the debate with remarks from a sedentary position.

Mr. Willetts: I have referred to the class size pledge, the literacy strategy and to performance-related pay. I must mention also the way in which the Government are changing the financing of schools and education in this country. The story is the same: it is about heavy-handed bureaucracy and centralised control from Whitehall.
We know what the Government are like: it is very convenient to pop up on the "Today" programme and announce another initiative and another little pot of money that is supposed to finance it. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are always announcing another little gimmick that they hope will get them 48 hours of good publicity. However, schools up and down the country must then waste time and effort submitting bids for penny packets of money when the administrative costs involved in preparing the bids often exceed the amount that schools may receive at the end of the day.
The Minister set up a task force on bureaucracy, and one of its first recommendations was that bidding could be used as a selective basis for encouraging initiative in education. However, it cannot be used time after time as a means of supposedly delivering national policy objectives because it will end up undermining the ability of head teachers to manage their budgets. We must trust head teachers to decide whether it would be best to spend


money on more books for the school library, on increasing the maths teacher's pay in order to retain him or on refurbishing school buildings. There is no point in saying that, if schools want to achieve those desirable aims, they must apply to the Secretary of State for a personal cheque from the Department for Education and Employment before they can do anything. That is no way to run a school.

Mr. James Plaskitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willetts: No, I want to make progress.
If the Minister is honest, she will accept that head teachers refer again and again to the problems in their schools caused by the Government's policies.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willetts: No, I shall make progress.
That is why the Government keep announcing that they are trying to cut bureaucracy. The process began on 21 May 1997, within three weeks of the Government arriving in office, when they announced: "Blunkett cuts red tape." Just like every other initiative from the Government, that was relaunched and repeated, so that, by the end of July 1997, red tape was to get a "caning", according to the Minister of State.
By 16 January 1998, the Government were announcing:
Morris cuts through the red tape".
We might have hoped that the hon. Lady was making progress by then, but, instead, the Government realised that they needed someone else to blame and announced a month later:
Government orders investigation into £142 million taken from schools for local authority red tape".
Much of the time, local authorities are simply having to comply with the instructions and demands sent by the Government.

Mrs. Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willetts: No, I want to make progress.
All that I am doing is quoting press notices from the Minister's Department, which has claimed again and again that it is taking action to reduce bureaucracy.
On 13 April 1998, the announcement was:
Government takes action to cut bureaucracy".
One might have thought that at least that was the end of story, but on 1 June, the Department announced:
Blunkett pledges action to tackle needless red tape".
It became a pledge for the future. Only last week, the Minister announced that the Government were
keeping performance red tape to a minimum".
However, seven press notices and six relaunches later, we are still nowhere near tackling the problem.
The reason is to be found in the terms of reference for the working party on bureaucracy set up by the Government. The first paragraph of the working party's report makes it clear what was the problem. It says:
This report reflects the agreed conclusions that the Group reached within the constraints it was advised that its remit imposed. Inevitably, some individual members would wish to go beyond that and change the statutory framework in ways which reduce teachers' workloads.
That is the crucial point—the working party was not even allowed to consider the real source of the problem, which is the primary and secondary legislation that the Government have passed. They set up a working party on bureaucracy, but did not allow it to consider the real problem. That would be like a Home Office leak inquiry that could not interview Home Office Ministers. There is no point setting up an inquiry on bureaucracy and then refusing to allow it to consider legislation.

Mrs. Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willetts: I have a soft spot for the hon. Lady, so I shall give way.

Mrs. Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in condemning Tory-controlled Cambridgeshire county council, which, for the second year running, has not passported the increase in the standard spending assessment made by the Government? That upsets teachers in my constituency.

Mr. Paice: Cambridgeshire already spends over the SSA.

Mr. Willetts: I have been reliably reformed by my hon. Friend that the council is already spending above the SSA level, and that is relevant.
We do not need to use the Government's method to raise standards in schools. There are better alternatives—Conservative ways of raising standards. As an absolute minimum, every time the Government introduce regulations, instructions and directives to the House and impose them on schools and local education authorities, they should publish their estimate of how much teacher time and financial resources would be necessary simply to comply with them. We could then have a rational debate about the extent to which the costs that were being imposed would be matched by the benefits that were being claimed.

Miss Melanie Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willetts: No, I am reaching my conclusion.
I am trying to explain to Labour Members that they and their party are responsible for a catastrophic collapse of confidence in schools and teachers caused by the very initiatives that they boast about in the House. Conservative Members believe in setting schools free, and giving them a break from the tiresome, tedious flow of instructions and directives from the Labour party is the single best way of raising standards in our schools.

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
commends the Government for the introduction of vital measures to improve standards, particularly in literacy and numeracy; applauds the extra flexibility it has introduced in the national curriculum for primary pupils and support for work-related learning for 14–16 year olds; welcomes the Government's support for greater diversity through specialist schools and education action zones; believes that the extra £19 billion for schools will underpin the drive for higher standards and welcomes plans to reward good teachers well; congratulates Ministers for introducing much greater clarity to mailings for schools with a view to keeping paperwork to a minimum; recognises the huge benefits which the National Grid for Learning and voluntary schemes of work bring in reducing unnecessary paperwork; and notes that the Opposition has no proposals to raise standards in schools.
The Opposition tend to use Opposition day debates as a way of announcing a U-turn on policy, which I do not mind. What is interesting tonight is that we have heard the second U-turn on class sizes in the past 18 months. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who led for the Opposition in the Standing Committee considering the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, seemed to have been converted to the view that class sizes matter. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who backed the right hon. Gentleman up in Committee, has said tonight that class sizes do not matter and we should not be addressing the issue.

Mrs. Browning: The Minister and I served on that Committee and she knows only too well that the Conservatives made it clear what effect the regulation limiting infant classes to 30 pupils would have, particularly in rural schools, where there would be vertical streaming and pupils at key stage 2 would be in larger classes. We were disputing not the principle but the Government's regulatory method and their adamancy that there would be no flexibility. The hon. Lady knows that that was the Opposition's position, not the one that she has just stated.

Ms Morris: That is exactly my point. The hon. Lady cannot have it both ways. One cannot say that class sizes matter and then deny the means of achieving smaller classes, but that is exactly what she and her colleagues sought to do throughout the Bill's passage through Committee.
I do not mind the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) using Supply days to say that he has reversed the Opposition's policy, but I object to him trying to rewrite history, as he has done today. When he was speaking, I had to remind myself that, on education, the previous Government were the most centralising Government since the war. The Tory Government introduced an education Bill each year for 18 years, but their average on education quangos was even better—they managed to set up nine in eight years. In his speech and his press release today, the hon. Gentleman complained about 322 edicts and directives issued by the Government within a year. I shall return to that point later. With 322 directives, we are far behind the number that he managed to achieve when he was in government.
The Education Reform Act 1988 produced not 322, not 500, not 700, not 800, but 1,066 statutory instruments, 670 of which were introduced in the two years following

the legislation's passage through the House. Have the Conservatives forgotten—I have not because I was in school at the time—the mountain of paperwork caused by the introduction of the national curriculum? That was caused not by a concerted effort to raise standards, but by the fact that they kept getting it wrong and having to change their mind. They did not run trials; they did not consult; they did not provide resources to back up the policy, and their errors in introducing the national curriculum cost £744 million. There is no comparison between that figure and the amount that we have spent on introducing the literacy curriculum.
Let us be clear—the Opposition are entitled to change their mind, but they are not entitled to kid us or anyone else that their past actions can be wiped clean from the slate. The passion and enthusiasm displayed by the hon. Member for Havant today was that of the convert.

Mr. Fabricant: The Minister comes from the west midlands, so she will understand my point. She talks about history; can she not understand the sense of betrayal felt by people in Staffordshire, where Labour candidates promised during the general election that a Labour Government would initiate wholesale reform of funding, including that for Staffordshire, which, as the hon. Lady knows, is at the very bottom of shire county funding? The Minister has now told us in answer to written questions that there will be a review in three years' time, after the next election, and even then Labour may not meet its promises. How dare she talk to the House about history—she has broken the rules of history.

Ms Morris: There is another hon. Gentleman who wants to wipe the slate clean. Let me remind him that Staffordshire was at the bottom of the table for money under his Government. What action did they take?

Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Morris: No, not again; it was bad enough the first time. What action did the hon. Gentleman's Government take to change or review Staffordshire's SSA? Staffordshire can now welcome a 6.5 per cent. increase in SSA. For the first time in years, it will be able to celebrate an increase in SSA and grant compared with that received under the hon. Gentleman's Government. I will take no lectures from him, given that, for 18 years, the Conservative Government failed to address the problems of SSAs. In comparison with that, three years, in which to do it well and get it right, is but a short time to wait.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: What has my hon. Friend to say to Medway parents, teachers and schoolchildren, given that Liberal Democrats and Tories voted down the Labour budget, cutting £250,000 that was earmarked to go straight to primary schools, despite £28 million reserves? Does that not show that only the Labour party is interested in investing in education, and that the Tories and Liberal Democrats are interested only in cutting budgets?

Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. I have met many head teachers in his constituency. They will have learned


the lesson from that decision that only Labour can be trusted to put more money into education. That is so throughout the country.

Mrs. Theresa May: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Morris: Yes, but then I shall not give way for a considerable time.

Mrs. May: On precisely the assertion that only Labour can be trusted to put money into education, what would the Minister say to Labour councillors in Leicestershire, who, with Liberal councillors, voted against a Conservative proposal that money from the Government for increased education spending should be passported to education, and instead voted for a lower amount to be spent on education? What does she say to the Labour leader of Hertfordshire council, who has received a letter from the Secretary of State expressing his regret that Labour Hertfordshire will not passport money to the education budget?

Ms Morris: I would say exactly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said: passport the money. We have secured money from the Treasury, and it should be passported to education. The record of Labour local authorities stands in stark contrast to that of Conservative authorities.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Ms Morris: I cannot resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Foster: As everybody is asking how the Minister would respond to particular things, may I ask how she would respond to the simple fact that Liberal Democrat-run authorities provide more money per capita than Labour-run authorities?

Mr. Jamieson: Not in Devon.

Ms Morris: It is not that I distrust the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), but I would look at the figures. As my hon. Friend the Whip says, it is not so in Devon. If the hon. Gentleman wants a longer debate on the point, I would be happy to return to it in an Adjournment debate.
The Conservative motion says that we are placing burdens on schools that represent
a significant obstacle to raising educational standards.
We know from the speech of the hon. Member for Havant his exact definition of a burden. He thinks that the literacy hour is a burden. He told us that he thinks that it is over-prescriptive and too rigid. His hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) thinks, strangely enough, that 60 minutes is too long for the literacy hour. When the numeracy hour comes along next year, she will probably be able to correct that comment.
If we had taken notice of Conservative Members' comments about the literacy hour, everything that this Government have done on literacy in the past 18 months would not have happened. There would have been no literacy hour, no retraining of primary school teachers in

best practice and no new emphasis on phonics and teaching grammar. There would have been no pressure on schools to teach best practice, no research into different strategies and no spreading of what we know works. It goes without saying that, had matters been left to the Tories, there would also have been no £44 million—which has bought 10 million extra books for our schools—and probably no national year of reading.
The Tories would have carried on doing exactly what they did in power. As a result, in five years' time, four out of 10 11-year-old children still would not be able to read, write or use numbers effectively. It is no good the hon. Member for Havant quoting last year's national curriculum test results, because they were the last such tests before the introduction of the literacy hour. They are therefore a sad indictment of his Government. We will reach our targets, and a generation of children will rejoice as a result.
I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Havant not in his speech but in The Sun earlier this month, when he said:
Children who are not taught to read or do basic arithmetic are being betrayed".
By his admission, four out of 10 children were betrayed by his Government, which is exactly why we have introduced the literacy hour.

Mr. Willetts: Will the Minister commit herself to the Secretary of State's pledge to resign if the Government do not reach their literacy and numeracy targets by 2002?

Ms Morris: Of course I will; I have already done so. Indeed, I generously commit the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), too. We speak with one voice. The hon. Gentleman's question is a reflection of what life was like under teams of Conservative Ministers, when a Secretary of State would promise to resign but the rest of the team would not go too. I will tell the hon. Gentleman another thing: there will be a team celebration when we achieve those targets—because achieve those targets we certainly will.
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman's understanding of the literacy hour is shallower than that of any teacher and of most parents whom I have met. As Mr. Woodhead said when he presented his annual report earlier in the month, the literacy hour is a
serious attempt to draw together, from inspection and research evidence, approaches which are known to work. There is always, moreover, room for professional manoeuvre: the idea that teachers must minute by minute adhere to each prescribed step in the programme is a myth promulgated by those who reject any attempt to provide practical assistance to teachers as an onslaught on professional autonomy.
We have learned in this debate that the hon. Gentleman is on the side of the myth promulgators. This Government are on the side of those who want to provide practical assistance to teachers doing a difficult task. We have provided in the literacy hour—this is what the hon. Gentleman has missed—training in best practice and materials to do the job. We have asked teachers to exercise their professional judgment within a framework of best practice which we know works. That is what the literacy hour is; that is what teachers are doing; and that is what the numeracy hour will be, too.
The hon. Member for Havant did not once mention whether the literacy hour works. It is no good his scowling. He would sooner count the bits of paper that


are sent to schools to support the literacy hour than he would consider evidence of whether it works. He is entitled to count bits of paper and ignore evidence. I admit that we could have avoided sending 40 bits of paper to schools by not introducing the literacy hour. But a generation of children would have been betrayed—to use the hon. Gentleman's words—had we not done so.
The same can be said for a range of other initiatives on those bits of paper that the hon. Member for Havant has been busy counting and weighing. Let us take home-school agreements, which get parents involved in schools. Is he against or for such agreements? What about target setting? By not introducing that, we could have avoided sending nine letters to schools. Is he against or for it? What of homework policy? I think we could have avoided sending two or three more letters by not encouraging schools to set homework, but that would have meant that half the children still were not set homework, and we know that homework makes a difference to standards.
We could have saved bits of paper by not launching the national year of reading or education action zones, and we could have saved two letters by not letting schools know that they were getting £1,000 to spend on books. Unlike the letters, missives and directives sent to schools when the Conservatives were in office, our paperwork did not say, "We have changed our mind, or got it wrong last time, so here is another letter"; instead, it was part of a coherent package and a standards agenda.

Mr. Owen Paterson: On the subject of target setting, today I received a letter from Grahame Arnold, head teacher of the Adams school in Wem—one of the most successful Shropshire schools—and chairman of the Shropshire secondary heads. He said:
The government's new target-setting agenda for schools, teachers and governors often produces huge amounts of information for the government that is irrelevant to individual pupil performance.

Ms Morris: I will just have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman and the head whom he quotes. I would sooner cite the Ofsted evidence and the research evidence, which show that clear target setting in schools raises standards. It seems to be an absolute matter of fact that teachers set targets and support their children's learning in order to achieve those targets. Target setting is a good thing.

Mr. Paterson: So Mr. Arnold is wrong, is he?

Ms Morris: I disagree with him; I do not know how many times the hon. Gentleman wants me to say that. Target setting is important to the agenda of raising standards.
The Opposition motion mentions diversity. It is becoming increasingly clear—it emerged again from the speech of the hon. Member for Havant—what the Tories now mean by diversity. The Daily Telegraph tells us that the Leader of the Opposition is poised to ditch the national curriculum that the Conservatives introduced 10 years ago. I read in the New Statesman that the regular Willetts lunches at the Centre for Policy Studies speculate about trusting groups such as teachers to get on with their job as they think best. Most interesting, however, was the

Daily Mail report that told us that the hon. Member for Havant wanted schools to be run by workers' co-operatives.
That sounds to me like turning the clock back. I do not mind that, but let us be clear that that is now the Opposition's idea of diversity—a return to "teach what you want, how you want." That would be diversity at the expense of standards, and we want no part of it.
There is a growing difference between the Opposition's definition of diversity and ours. The form of diversity that we have introduced supports standards and does not detract from them. We have expanded the specialist schools programme by 50 per cent. We have given those schools money to develop links with local schools—each will be different and reflect the flavour of the partnership within schools.
We have freed up key stages 1 and 2 so that teachers can concentrate on the basics but still teach a broad range of subjects. We have offered flexibility at key stage 4. We have allowed schools to forge links with further education colleges. We have introduced advanced skills teachers so that schools can develop ways of using the skills of their best teachers. We have introduced and financed education action zones, giving them the freedom on the curriculum and on teachers' contracts that was denied by the previous Government.
We have introduced a new lighter-touch inspection framework for our most successful schools. We have delegated up to £1 billion so that schools now have the freedom to spend money in the way that they want. The key difference here is that delegation under the Tories always meant freedom as to which cuts to make, whereas delegation under the Government means freedom to decide how to spend a growing amount of money in the education budget, year after year.
I do agree with the only serious point in the speech of the hon. Member for Havant—that there is a constant need to ensure that our dealings with schools are as efficient as possible. That is why we have introduced stringent new measures to keep the paper in check. Since September 1998, a typical primary school has received just eight mailings, containing a total of 42 items. Only 13 required action from heads; the rest were for information. We have introduced a new system of clearly identifying, on every mailing, whether it is for action or for information.
Let me give the House an example of a typical mailing—our most recent, which was sent to schools on 11 February. It contained, for primary schools, two items about teaching literacy to those students in greatest need of help. It contained the pay review body's recommended teachers pay scales and a list of new DfEE information available on request. A typical secondary school would not have received the information about the literacy items, but would have received information to be distributed to its students about financial support in higher education. Five hundred secondary schools would also have received a consultation paper about the practical implications of data protection in schools. Under the Conservative Government, that consultation paper would have been sent to all 24,000 schools. We have introduced a system of sending the consultation papers to a cross-section of schools, so that they are not a burden on schools.
Which one of those documents should we not have sent? Should we not have sent the pay scales? Should we not have sent the information about how to help children


who are behind with literacy? Should we not have sent secondary schools information to pass to students about financial help with higher education? We are told by the hon. Member for Havant that we have issued 322 edicts and directives in a year. Numeracy lessons cannot come quickly enough: let me tell him that 179 of those were sent for consultation or action, and not to schools but to local education authorities. They included distance learning material, guidance in tackling truancy, information to help schools raise standards and guidance on early-years development.
Which should we not send? Do you not want to tackle truancy? Do you not want to raise standards in the early years? Do you not want to let the local authorities—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must use the correct parliamentary form of address.

Ms Morris: Please accept my apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Havant must decide which of those initiatives he is not prepared to pursue.

Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Morris: No, I will not.
What was noticeable about the Opposition motion and the speech of the hon. Member for Havant was that, throughout, there was no mention of parents, no mention of high standards, no expectation of what our young people might achieve, no understanding of the partnership between Government and schools that is essential to raising standards and not a flicker of an understanding that part of the role of Government is to show leadership.
If turning the tide of under-achievement for schools means that we send them 30 extra letters a year, so be it. The Conservatives have carped tonight, but I reckon that a generation of children will be on our side, not theirs. I take seriously the issue of paperwork. But do not weigh it or count it. Read it and evaluate it, and take decisions on the basis not of how many words it contains but of whether it contributes to the agenda of raising standards.
The material that we send to schools is part of a coherent package to raise standards. An attack on that is an attack on standards, and the hon. Member for Havant should be ashamed.

Mr. Don Foster: I am delighted once again to have the opportunity to follow the Minister. Whether the House agreed or disagreed with what she said, the whole House will acknowledge the passion and conviction with which she spoke. It was interesting to hear the absolute sincerity with which she committed herself and the whole of the Front-Bench team to resign, should they fail to meet their targets. That was in sharp contrast to Lord Patten, who, as Secretary of State, when he was John Patten, promised that if he failed to meet his targets in relation to grant-maintained schools, he would eat his hat garnished—which, as far as I am aware, he has so far failed to do.
Because the Minister spoke with such passion, it is important for me to explain to her clearly why the Liberal Democrats will support the Opposition motion tonight. However, in doing so I would enter two caveats.
First, I echo the Minister's words by pointing out that there is a degree of irony in the Opposition's tabling the motion when they were undoubtedly responsible for placing a significant number of burdens and unnecessary bureaucracy on our schools. For example, we need look only at the unbelievably cumbersome and bureaucratic system of nursery vouchers, which I was delighted that the new Government rapidly abolished. There are many other examples, such as the early version of the national curriculum and the burdens created by the Conservative Government's proposals for grant-maintained schools. However, if my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will pick up some of those, which are clearly illustrated by the Liberal Democrats' amendment.
My second caveat is that I do not accept that the Government should have sat on their hands and done nothing. Under the previous Administration, many people in our schools complained of innovation fatigue, and they desperately wanted to be left alone by the new Administration. But given the state in which the previous Administration left our education service, that was not an option. Therefore a number of changes were necessary, some of which I support, and I accept that they placed burdens on our schools.
The issue for tonight's debate is not about burdens being placed on schools—burdens will always be placed on schools—it is rather, quite properly, about whether the burdens imposed by the Government are necessary: some are not.
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made a powerful case, so I shall not repeat all his points. But the Minister was right when she said that, in making a judgment on the issue, we should consider the evidence. I want to consider the evidence coming from those who work in our schools—governors, teachers and head teachers.
I cannot help but reflect on a recent quote in The Times Educational Supplement from a primary head teacher. He said:
A secondary head phoned me a couple of weeks ago. He told me how tired he was of no longer feeling in control of his own establishment. So much was being done to him from the outside, be it by the local authority or the DfEE, that he no longer had the enthusiasm to make it work.
In the past 24 hours, my officers have been in touch with the two major bodies that represent governors and managers in our schools—the National Governors Council and the National Association of Governors and Managers. On hearing about today's debate, the National Governors Council said:
We are very concerned about the burdens imposed on schools by the deluge of government directives and new initiatives. Target-setting in particular is causing serious difficulties. Many of our local associations up and down the country are saying 'We don't know how we can cope with this.'
The National Association of Governors and Managers made similar points.

Dr. George Turner: The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he believed that we should be considering the evidence, but at the moment he is examining hearsay. If he is to do what he said he would do, surely he must tell us which of the Government


initiatives he believes should not have been taken into the classroom. Will he quickly move on to that before he so firmly nails his colours to the Tory mast?

Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to bide his time a wee while, I promise that I shall address that very point. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is important to listen to the views of those who work in our schools if we are to determine whether unnecessary burdens have been placed on our schools. The evidence that I have quoted from a head teacher and from the two bodies representing governors and managers is backed up by the evidence that we have from teachers themselves.
The hon. Gentleman is well aware that tens of thousands of teachers are leaving the profession early, demoralised and dispirited, and sadly fewer and fewer people are coming forward to join it. One reason for that which is cited by many of those leaving is the increased burdens being placed on them. It is frightening that more and more teachers are telling me that they are tired of being told by the Government how they should teach and even organise their classrooms.
It is almost as if the Government do not understand the pressures that our teachers already face. Just after Christmas, I received a copy of a circular letter—the sort of thing which many of us receive at Christmas—from a teacher who was the only one remaining of a group of 10 who had joined the profession in 1967. She said:
I'm absolutely sick of school—it's really hard work and I never know what I'm supposed to be doing! Next term we have an Ofsted inspection which is about the most awful thing that can happen to a school. We are all up to our eyes in paperwork … We spend as much time working out of school as we do in school and there's plenty to do at the weekends as well. Housework hardly gets a look-in. I wish we could win the Lottery … Luckily I stay healthy and Joe does a lot of things like cooking when he's not working. I don't know how we'd manage otherwise. Isn't it awful to be looking forward to retiring—wishing your life away?".

Helen Jones: Ah!

Mr. Foster: I hope that the hon. Lady will consider the number of teachers who are leaving the profession early because they, too, feel exactly what this teacher is expressing about the profession. If the hon. Lady is not prepared to acknowledge that those teachers are feeling demoralised and disillusioned, in part because of the burdens that are being placed on them, the crisis in our classrooms, begun under the previous Administration, will continue under her Government.

Liz Blackman: Has the hon. Gentleman spoken to teachers in his constituency who are delivering the literacy hour about the progress that children are already making? I have throughout my constituency, and the news is positive.

Mr. Foster: Of course, the hon. Lady is right. Any hon. Member taking part in an education debate should have

spent time talking to many teachers, and I certainly have. Many teachers to whom I have spoken believe that many good ideas are contained within the literacy hour.

Mr. Plaskitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, I am in the middle of replying to the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman). I may give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
No doubt those teachers will also say that there are good ideas in the numeracy hour. But many feel that the literacy hour imposes on them, as will the numeracy hour, a particular way of operating which takes away their opportunity to be professionals: to gather evidence of good practice, rightly provided by the Government, and package it for the benefit of their pupils so as to do what the Government want, which is to raise standards.

Mr. Plaskitt: rose—

Mr. Foster: I should like to make a little progress if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
The Minister was keen to deal with the Green Paper on teachers' pay. The House will be interested to know what she said in a press release issued by the Department on 25 February, just a few days ago:
Some of the criticism we have heard is that appraisal, as proposed, will be far too bureaucratic. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are proposing a cycle which need not be unwieldy or place an additional burden on school life.
She suggests that the proposals in the Green Paper will not place an additional burden on school life. I do not know where the Minister is living, because she is certainly not living in the real world.
It does not matter whether the proposal is right or wrong, because independent people have done an analysis of the amount of work involved and have found that it will take the head teacher of an 850-strong comprehensive with 45 staff more than 100 hours to carry out the necessary appraisal—assuming 32 per cent. of teachers want to be appraised for the next stage, and excluding the time that governors will have to spend on it. That undoubtedly places an additional burden on schools.
The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) asked me what proposals I would not put into practice. I shall give him a couple of examples. The current bidding system—Labour's long odds education lottery—is a good example of the centralisation of education provision. It has placed enormous burdens on schools, which have to provide all the data that the local education authorities need to make their bids.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that, since the Government came to power, a grand total of over 16,000 bids for funds have been made by local education authorities on behalf of schools up and down the land. Of those 16,000 bids, 10,000 have failed. Think of the enormous amount of bureaucracy, effort and red tape people in our schools and LEAs have had to face to make bids that have not even been successful.
In some parts of the country, the situation is even worse. In Oxfordshire, a grand total of 1,115 bids have been made, and 1,002 of them have failed. The inordinate amount of time spent by officers and people in our schools on that procedure is horrendous. I would get rid of large chunks of the bidding system.
If the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk wants a good example of the penny packets to which the hon. Member for Havant referred, I suggest that he examines the Government's proposal for a children's Parliament. It got wonderful headlines, and everyone thought that the Government were doing wonderful things—until they looked at the figures. Each participating school will receive £10. The paperwork required for the bid costs more than that, let alone the support for schools.

Dr. George Turner: The hon. Gentleman seems to be losing sight of the big picture. I spent years on an education committee watching the backlog of building work grow. The schools in my patch have welcomed the opportunity to make their case to have their school buildings renovated, improved and added to. They want to be able to bid, because they do not want bureaucrats in Whitehall telling them where their priorities should lie. With what would the hon. Gentleman replace the bidding system? Would he let civil servants decide which schools get the money?

Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman served on a local education authority, surely he should accept that a more appropriate method is for the local education authority to be able to allocate the funds. He does not seem willing to distinguish between some of the good proposals that the Government have introduced and those that impose additional burdens.
Liberal Democrats have praised and welcomed some of the Government's proposals. I have sometimes acknowledged that they are worth while even though they would, in certain circumstances, increase the burden on schools. However, I have also produced evidence from teachers, governors and head teachers to show that some proposals create unnecessary bureaucracy in our schools and are damaging the Government's ability to raise standards.
In their desire to capture the education headlines almost on a daily basis, the Labour Government have failed to recognise that they are deprofessionalising teaching and demoralising governors. Without those teachers and governors, the legitimate standards agenda will not be achieved.
A senior Government education policy adviser, quoted in the latest edition of the Education Journal, gave the game away. He was asked why there could not be a let-up in the flow of initiatives. He replied:
The public will think we have run out of steam.
The problem is that without a let-up from the unnecessary burdens, schools will run out of steam long before the Government do.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: There are times when I hear Conservative Members speaking in the House and think that I am in some sort of post-modern "Alice in Wonderland" world where things are getting curiouser and curiouser. I am sad that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) seems to have associated himself with that position.
As my hon. Friend the Minister made perfectly clear, what we have heard from the Conservative party bears no relation to its record in government. I am afraid that I am going to take Conservative Members back to that record

in government, particularly on centralisation. There were two education Acts: one in 1988 and the other in 1993. The Education Reform Act 1988 had 238 sections, and the Education Act 1993 had 308 sections; 1,000 amendments and 55 new clauses were tabled; and more than 400 new powers were given to Ministers as a consequence of the 1993 Act.
The Conservative party's education policy was in constant turmoil over that period. There were four Secretaries of State for Education between 1989 and 1992. It is well known that the Conservatives brought us mad cow disease in the 1980s, but they also managed to bring mad Maoism—the doctrine of permanent revolution. There was such mad Maoism that, according to the magazine with which I was involved at the time, history teachers were tearing their hair out. HMI inspectors were driven to distraction by the amount of regulation produced by the Conservative Government and by the chopping and changing. Things moved on every time Mrs. Thatcher fished in her handbag for a new draft of the national curriculum, or every time she listened to some barmy, right-wing educationist. Constant changes were made. The only positive result was the introduction of the Baker days, when the poor, hard-pressed teachers were given time to catch up on the paperwork. That was the record of the Conservative party during that period.
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) referred to setting schools free, which is a fairly waffly thing to say. Were the Conservatives setting schools free when the much-vaunted funding agency for grant-maintained schools was directed from Whitehall by John Patten? We had centralisation and Maoism, and I would not have been surprised if they had have sent teachers into the fields to learn how to tithe and to collect the corn.
In that period, we also had the nationalisation of education policy. Bureaucracy was piled upon bureaucracy. To give him credit, the hon. Member for Bath referred to the nursery voucher paperchase. The assisted places scheme helped only 60,000 children out of 7 million. There were even some good ideas, such as local management of schools and governors, but the difficulties were compounded by the lack and training and time provided.
The consequences were there for all to see. The Audit Commission found that, in real terms, there had been a cut of £44 per primary school pupil and of £110 per secondary school pupil between 1994 and 1997. Back-room bureaucrats had a field day under the Tories, while front-line services suffered. The legacy of that bureaucracy was this: 500,000 primary school children in classes of 30 or more, a chronic crisis in recruitment and teaching and unacceptable standards in literacy and numeracy. No wonder Steve Norris, the former Conservative Member of Parliament for Epping Forest, said:
Our failure to improve the level of public education is one of the areas Conservatives have got to be most concerned about and frankly ashamed of".

Mr. David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend add to his sad list of statistics the fact that 158 members of Her Majesty's Opposition are not present for the debate? That suggests that at least 96 per cent. of Opposition Members are showing, on their own


Supply day, the degree of interest in education that was shown by their Government during the years that my hon. Friend is describing so graphically.

Mr. Marsden: I agree, but that is amply made up for by the chutzpah and brass neck that we are hearing from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: Given the hon. Gentleman's obvious mastery of the subject, will he concede that, proportionally, the parliamentary Labour party has fewer members present than the Conservatives?

Mr. Marsden: If the hon. Gentleman examines the record of Labour Members' attendance of education debates here and, for that matter, in Standing Committees, he will find that our record is far superior to that of members of his party. [HON. MEMBERS: "And this is an Opposition day."] Indeed it is.
Given the background, it is not surprising that the then Conservative education Ministers approached the School Standards and Framework Bill, enacted in 1998, with a certain amount of confusion and schizophrenia. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee witnessed, time after time, confusion over whether they should or should not accept the Bill's basic principles, and we are witnessing the same confusion this evening. What do the Conservatives oppose, and what alternatives do they suggest? Why are they in such difficulty?
It is a shame that the hon. Member for Havant is no longer present. In deference to his interest in philosophy, I was going to say that, essentially, the Conservatives' problem is one of philosophy. They have so mired and encrusted themselves over 18 years in their jaundiced view of the public-service ethos that they are incapable of distinguishing between enabling and empowering—what the present Government are doing for education—and the Stalinist direction of which their own Lady Thatcher was so enamoured.
The Conservatives really have only two models. One is mad market chaos—grant-maintained schools versus the rest; city technology colleges versus the rest; assisted places versus the rest. The other, which we saw in spades when they were in government, is centralisation, stamping out dissent and local education authority initiatives. The Opposition seem to sign up to a Hobbesian view of education—except that, in their case, rather than being nasty, brutish and short, it is nasty, smug and hideously complex. They are incapable of understanding, or unwilling to understand, the models of co-operation and collaboration offered by the present Government through initiatives such as education action zones and beacon schools.
We shall not intervene where it is not necessary. Where schools are working well and raising standards, there will be a light touch. My hon. Friend the Minister has said as much on previous occasions in respect of Ofsted. If there are problems, however, we will act: we will intervene, as the Government intervened over Hackney. That intervention can only be compared with the futile way in which the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), the former Secretary of State, dealt with Calderdale and Nottinghamshire.
We are setting targets for the raising of standards. We are encouraging local education authorities with educational development plans; we are encouraging people to learn from best practice. The results are transparent: a 5 per cent. increase in spending per annum, an extra £200 million for homework centres, 1,200 numeracy and literacy schools this summer, the inclusion of nutritional standards for school meals for the first time in 18 years, and education action zones to tackle under-achievement. I hope that before long there will be one in my constituency.
Those are the burdens that we are laying on schools, teachers, parents and pupils. I can only say that I am delighted that my schools in Blackpool have been burdened by the Government. From September, thousands of pupils will be kept out of classes of more than 30. They have been burdened with a successful capital bid of more than £5 million for 1999–2000 to build additional classrooms and employ extra teachers, to reduce overcrowding in secondary schools. They have been burdened with capital investment to repair and to renew buildings and equipment, with receiving £185,000 for the national literacy strategy, and with more than 1,000 new nursery places for three-year-olds from September 1999, in addition to free places for all four-year-olds. Incidentally, those places are crucial in a town such as Blackpool, where so many parents are in part-time and multiple employment. Those are the "burdens" that the Government are putting on people. They are necessary following the burdens that were put on them by the previous Government.
For the first time in 18 years, the Government are offering parents, teachers and governors a strategic and sensible vision of education for the future. It is challenging and ambitious, but a burden it is not. The Conservative party left us with the torpor of cynicism and an educational graveyard. Despite all its attempts to efface history, it seems to have made no effort to emerge and to learn from that.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: For someone with a reputation for studying history, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) shows remarkably little grasp of it when it comes to education. He seems to have forgotten that it was Conservative Members who dominated the debate on last year's School Standards and Framework Bill and who spoke day after day, while Labour Members sat like so many nodding donkeys doing exactly as their Whip required. The two Liberal Democrat Members who are present—the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis)—were the honourable exception: as always, they made their unique contribution to the proceedings. The debate follows directly from that Bill and the chapter after chapter of regulations, forms and rules with which the Government try to bind every aspect of education.
The Minister for School Standards put her figure on it, but she did not answer the challenge that she set herself. The question is not whether the Government have placed new burdens on the education system—that is beyond doubt; they have imposed massive burdens on our schools—but where the benefits are.
That is the question that Labour Members cannot answer. They attack the previous Government for their centralising policies, which we must interpret as an attack,


fundamentally, on the national curriculum. We all know that there were problems with implementing that curriculum—there are problems with implementing any bold new strategy—but entrenching into the education system the principle of a national curriculum was one of the previous Government's greatest achievements in their 18 years in office.
When the Minister attacks Government quangos, ultimately, she is attacking Ofsted. Whatever may be said about the implementation of Ofsted's work, I think that its introduction and the change in culture that it has achieved is another great educational achievement of the previous Conservative Government. It underpinned the rise in education standards and improvement in GCSE and A-level results year after year under the previous Government, so the Labour party is all over the place when it tries to attack the principles that underpin the education revolution that the Conservatives achieved in their 18 years in power.
The Government latch on to soundbites and initiatives—anything that sells well in the papers the next day—at the cost of any genuine progress in education attainment.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman talked about the philosophical direction of the previous Government and, as an example of that, about the achievement at the top end of the academic spectrum and improved GCSE results. Will he talk about what that Government's philosophical commitment was to those at the other end of the spectrum?

Mr. St. Aubyn: The previous Government greatly expanded the budget for special educational needs. Even the current Government, after entering office, were obliged to praise the previous Government's efforts in providing for the 3 per cent. who perform worst in school.
Since the current Government came to power, my constituency of Guildford, and the county of Surrey, has experienced one attack after another on our education standards. Our local education authority has one of the United Kingdom's best results in literary standards in primary schools. Nevertheless, our assisted places scheme—the subject was dealt with by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South—has been attacked. In abolishing the scheme, the Government essentially came into my town of Guildford and closed one of our best secondary schools. Overnight, almost 400 places of outstanding worth for local children were abolished.
It is true that, year after year, there has been an increase in Surrey's standard spending assessment, but the increases have come with a real cut in the cash that is supposed to pay for increased education spending in Surrey. That is the reality of our problem.
The Government's amendment to the Opposition motion claims that
the Opposition has no proposals to raise standards".
When we proposed a genuine new partnership in Surrey between the independent and state sectors, initially, the Minister for School Standards praised it as a great advance and the type of scheme that she would like to be implemented across the country. Subsequently, however, her boss saw the small print. At the last minute, he whipped out an extra provision in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to deny us the power to

implement that bold Conservative initiative, at least until the introduction of regulations telling us how the Government thought we should implement it. That is exactly what the debate is all about.
A year after the Secretary of State's damning act pre-empting an initiative that would have built bridges between the independent and state sectors, no regulations for such initiatives have been proposed. Why have no such proposals been made? Why will such proposals, even consultative ones, not be made for another month or two? Why are the Government delaying making such proposals? Is the only reason for delay the fact that such proposals would be based on a bold Conservative initiative that would build bridges between the private and the state sectors? Conservative Members fervently believe that building such bridges is one of the ways in which we will raise education standards in the United Kingdom.
Conservative-controlled Surrey has, however, proposed one other initiative. So far, the Minister for School Standards has endorsed it, and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has not seen fit to shout it down. Month after month, however, there has been only a wall of silence from the Department for Education and Employment when we have sought its guidance and advice on how we should proceed with the initiative.
Under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the Secretary of State takes so much power from LEAs. Although Surrey's initiative had to be approved by him, he remained absolutely silent when we asked him to do so. That is characteristic of the burdens placed on counties such as Surrey. Other than the odd statement of political play—such as the one at last year's Labour party conference, when the Secretary of State said that, if he did not like what we were doing, he would step into Guildford and take over running our schools, and other such nonsense; I had to explain to him that that would be against the law, even under the 1998 Act—we have received no guidance on the initiative.
Conservative Members, who want diversity in education, have a real problem. We believe that a broad range of educational talent is available, and that diversity will harness that talent. Diversity cannot be characterised by the uniformity and dead hand of the Secretary of State. An inquiry by the Select Committee on Education and Employment into highly able children described, for example, how the literacy hour is turning off the most able children because it is far too boring for them. It is destroying their education standards, which are just as important as the education standards of other children in the class.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: There is also the issue of imposing on schools something which might not suit their requirements. I can tell my hon. Friend about the experience of my son who came home from school explaining that the vicar would no longer be visiting the school because the literacy hour had left no time. That is a matter for schools and parents to decide, not Ministers.

Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. With all these initiatives the Government are creating an artificial world for education in this country. Teachers, heads and schools are being given artificial targets that do not answer the real individual needs of the children for


whom they are responsible. For example—we warned the Government that this would happen—in the first year of this Government and the new initiative for smaller classes in the first three years of primary school, the number of children in classes of over 40 in primary schools in Britain has doubled. Before the Government took office, the figure was on a downward trend. If the Government create an artificial target which says that half the school must have smaller classes, the inevitable consequence of trying to find the teachers necessary for that, other class sizes have to go up.

Dr. George Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. St. Aubyn: I will give way in a moment.
Another example is the spring revision classes for year 6. It is an £18 million scheme, and teachers up and down the country have been complaining that it is a great waste of time. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) will forgive me if I use an example from his constituency. In connection with the extra classes for year 6, the head of Belvidere primary school near Shrewsbury said:
Although I would not wish to miss out on any extra funding, I am seriously concerned that this is far more to do with massaging key stage 2 SATs scores at a national level, than raising standards in levels of achievement.
I could not put it better myself, but I will give the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) an opportunity to do so.

Dr. Turner: When £56 million is provided for extra teachers, I am trying to understand the logic of it being inevitable that a reduction in class sizes implies a doubling elsewhere. It sounds like Conservative logic to me—having to cut class sizes without any extra money to do so. The Government have committed themselves to providing the necessary funding to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. Why is a doubling in class sizes elsewhere inevitable?

Mr. St. Aubyn: I know that a former Education Minister could not even master the seven times table, but it is obvious that, if there is a limited number of teachers—we know that there is a problem of teacher supply about which the Government were warned at the outset of their term of office—there will be a problem. Those teachers have to come from somewhere. The strains in the system are showing by the fact that the number of classes with more than 40 pupils has doubled. That is the scandal of the Government's record in their first year in office.
King's Manor school in my constituency is the first school in the country to have been contracted out to the private sector. It was a great achievement for Conservative-run Surrey education authority. It has won the support of the Minister for School Standards and the chief inspector. Let me say why it is such a significant move.
We have seen schools in difficulty turned around before by good or even great head teachers. What is so difficult, even in those cases, is to institutionalise the change in the

school. Schools fail because of a whole range of pressures and it needs more than one charismatic individual to solve the problem in the long term. By bringing in a new agency to provide new dynamism and purpose to the school in Guildford, I believe that we may have discovered a structure by which we can improve many of the failing schools up and down the country. In the second round of inspections, Ofsted has found too many schools that have not improved since their previous inspection. If we can get round the bureaucratic burdens that we keep getting from the Government, Conservative ideas will solve the problems.

Jacqui Smith: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, although I am disappointed by the Tory motion, which displays a narrow, negative and carping approach to education policy. We heard no positive proposals for action on standards from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). The Conservatives are more interested in weighing pieces of paper than in making positive proposals for improving what happens in classrooms and creating opportunities for our children. We have heard no recognition of the fact that 18 years of Conservative Government left our education system underfunded, with teachers demoralised and children having been failed.
The Opposition still believe that the only way to improve standards is by imposing a crude, laissez-faire market model of competition on the education system, so ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) as mad market chaos. In the Tory world, parents are consumers, schools are production units and children, presumably, are products. Have the Conservatives not yet learned that setting school against school does not raise standards?
We have also heard that the Conservatives did not even pursue the logic of that policy, as they distorted their view with the imposition of a dogmatic, overcrowded and inflexible national curriculum in 1988, despite the pleas of teachers and academics, whom they now claim to care so much about. The Conservative years were characterised by a combination of the irresponsible imposition of market forces on schools, and the centralising dogma of their national curriculum.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: Could the hon. Lady be more interesting?

Mr. Jamieson: Shut up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have an extraneous conversation between the Whip on Government Front Bench and an Opposition Back Bencher while an hon. Member has the Floor.

Jacqui Smith: Where was the incentive in the Conservative years for schools to share best practice? Why should schools have worked together to promote higher standards in the culture that was promulgated by the Conservatives? We could hope that the Conservatives had learned the lesson of those years, but unfortunately they have not. We have the evidence of that. Our Whip was not handing round Labour party propaganda, but was giving us the benefit of the Conservative party brief on


education—a single and rather flimsy sheet of paper which, under the heading "Points to make", says that Conservatives believe in raising standards through choice. That is the only proposal for raising standards. What does it mean? How will it work? There is no answer.

Mr. Fraser: rose—

Jacqui Smith: Perhaps we shall hear some ideas.

Mr. Fraser: Unlike Labour Members, we are free thinkers and we do not need aids to put our ideas together.

Jacqui Smith: That brief is not an aid, it is the Conservative party position on education.
I am being unfair. Three more policies are outlined in the Conservative document: first, they do not like our class size policy; secondly, they do not like the literacy hour; and thirdly, they like grammar schools. That is hardly a comprehensive approach to raising standards and putting right the damage that their Government did.
As an ex-teacher and a current member of the National Union of Teachers, I am concerned about the bureaucratic burdens placed on teachers. I welcome the recent NUT survey on those bureaucratic burdens. If, however, the Conservatives wanted to enlist support for their case from the NUT, they would be disappointed because, unlike them, the NUT and teachers can see a clear distinction in the uses to which Government paperwork and activities are put.
The NUT press release says:
Teachers draw a clear distinction between activities which promote high-quality teaching and learning and bureaucratic tasks which undermine it.
Teachers were asked to list the bureaucratic tasks that they felt were unhelpful. The list includes copying out lists, copy typing, collecting money, unnecessary preparation for Ofsted, bulk photocopying, analysing attendance registers and a variety of other tasks. Only one of the tasks listed did not develop under the previous Government. The bureaucratic burdens on teachers were imposed by the Conservative Government.
The one task on the list that I think should not be there—although I did not have any experience of it—is the auditing of standard fund spending. I have to disagree with my erstwhile colleagues in the NUT, because I wish that, in my 11 years of teaching under a Conservative Government, I had had the opportunity to audit extra spending, as opposed to spending my time wondering where money for improving standards was to come from.
I welcome the fact that the Government have addressed the real concerns through the bureaucracy working party, which issued guidance in May 1998 that was welcomed by teaching unions. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the Government have followed the working party's advice and changed the way in which mailings are sent out. If teachers are still doing too many bureaucratic tasks, that is a matter of how schools are being managed and how resources are being used locally.

Mr. Fraser: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is better to spend money closer to the pupil, taking away a lot of the bureaucracy in local education authorities? Does she agree that there should be choice and the opportunity for all parents to participate in how their children

are educated, or does she think, conversely, that everyone should have the same and that we should do down the system rather than bringing it up?

Jacqui Smith: There are several questions involved there, and I will certainly touch on those issues later on. Money is indeed important, which is why I condemned the underfunding under the previous Government, and why I think the present Government are right to have considered, in the fair funding proposals, how to get money down to schools and ensure that it is spent there.
One of the problems identified by the NUT was too many lunchtime meetings. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team are powerful and important but they cannot be held responsible if school management results in too many lunchtime meetings. Perhaps that highlights the need for training for headship, to make heads better able to manage both staff and resources—we know that the Government are delivering that—and the importance of the Green Paper.
The Green Paper is not only about pay, although it is worth noting that it will give many teachers a larger pay rise than I ever had in my teaching career and offer them the potential to earn more and stay in the classroom, raising standards for children. Bearing in mind the criticisms offered by the Conservative opportunists—I meant Opposition, but perhaps I was right the first time—it is worth asking whether Conservative Front Benchers are opposed to increased pay for teachers and, if not, how they would institute such increases.

Mr. Paterson: The hon. Lady has at last got round to discussing Government policy—the subject of the debate. Could she answer some questions that have been posed on the Green Paper by a senior head teacher in my constituency? He said that the amount of paperwork would be greatly increased if the proposed appraisal scheme went through. He asked who would do the appraisal, and how time would be spent by key managers in the school. He added that there was a huge assumption that that scheme would happen without the adequate provision of extra resources. Could she kindly answer those questions?

Jacqui Smith: I am pleased that the Government are undertaking exactly the sort of technical consultation that is necessary to address those issues. Is the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) arguing that we should not find the resources to increase teachers' pay? Is he arguing against his own party's manifesto, which said that the Conservatives believed that appraisal should be tightened on teachers and should focus solely on pupils' performance and results? That is what the Conservatives were arguing before the election.
The Green Paper is important because it will enable teachers to take a radical look at how they work. Are they working in a way that will raise standards? How will they work with the 20,000 new classroom assistants to be funded by the Government? How will they raise standards in the classroom? How will they improve their sense of professionalism? I welcome the opportunity given by the Green Paper to enable teachers to address those questions. This is a real, funded opportunity to review the role of teachers, and to refocus their efforts on what matters most—learning and teaching in the classroom.
I wish to refer to the literacy hour. I notice from the NUT survey that teachers—unlike the Conservative party—do not see the literacy hour as a burden. As a constituency Member of Parliament and a mother, I have had experience of the literacy hour on my visits to many schools in my constituency. I must tell the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—who has now left the Chamber—that my son's school managed not only to include that literacy hour, but to arrange to see the local vicar and to go to the local church. That is good news.
Schools, teachers and parents welcome the emphasis on raising standards, the sharing of best practice, the funding made available by the Government and the training of co-ordinators and staff.

Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jacqui Smith: No, I will not, because I want other Opposition Members to have a chance to speak.
Will the Conservatives come clean? Do they intend to scrap the literacy hour? Will they follow the advice of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and impose a further Tory education cut—introducing, perhaps, the literacy half-hour?
In conclusion, the Opposition have carped and criticised. They have failed to support the Government's action to raise standards, or our plans to increase the sense of professionalism and pay among teachers. They have failed to support the extra £19 billion of spending for education. I must tell Conservative Members that the biggest burden that I had placed on me in my 11 years as a teacher was my inability to find the resources to do the job properly. Those Members have failed to support our schools. In government, they failed our schools and our children. In opposition, they are still doing so.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am particularly grateful to be called at this juncture because I represent the neighbouring seat to that of the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), and, therefore, we share an interest in a number of school issues. Much of her speech was irrelevant, in that she discussed the past—from a partisan viewpoint—and the previous Government's excellent performance in education. She had precious little to say about the present Government's performance in education. However, her remark that her biggest burden as a teacher was financing was germane. Although the arrangement has changed on the Government Front Bench, the hon. Lady had an opportunity to speak to the Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) about the financing of Worcestershire schools and the problems faced by teachers and head teachers in Worcestershire schools with regard to the financing of our schools.
At the end of last year the Government conducted a review of the standard spending assessment and central Government financing of schools and local government.

The hon. Lady kindly arranged a meeting with the Under-Secretary—Labour Members have access to Ministers—so that we could listen—

Mr. Tony McNulty: Get on with it.

Miss Kirkbride: It may not be important to the hon. Gentleman, but to us in Worcestershire, it is extremely important. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary back in his place.

Mr. Plaskitt: Get on with it.

Miss Kirkbride: We had a meeting with the Minister about the funding of Worcestershire schools. It is extraordinary that during her speech the hon. Lady did not mention that despite the sympathetic hearing that the Labour leader of Worcestershire council received from the Minister, and despite the fact that the meeting was attended by teachers from various constituencies, we did not get a single extra penny out of the Government when the SSA was changed. Worcestershire schools should get greater priority.

Mr. Jamieson: Eighteen years.

Miss Kirkbride: I accept that under the Conservative Government, Tory Members tried to change the education grant. The difference is that when the hon. Gentleman's Government came to power, they pretended that everything would be different. They duly set up the review, and it changed nothing about the financial position of Worcestershire schools. They are still underfunded. They are in the lowest 10 per cent. for funding throughout the nation.
I am astonished that the hon. Member for Redditch did not mention that when she had the ear of the Minister and the opportunity to plead for all our schools, whether in Redditch or in Bromsgrove. If I may say so, she should be ashamed of herself.
The problem of financing is the greatest issue that schools in Worcestershire face, and the Government have done nothing about it. They are producing other burdens on our schools that are causing great concern. I recently visited Meadow Green primary school, where there is great concern about the effect of the changes to the local management of schools brought about in the Education (Schools) Act 1997. The school had not been told about the kind of repairs for which it will be responsible, the level of the budget that will be devolved from the local authority—a Labour-controlled local authority—for repairs and maintenance, and how much the capital spending programme will be as a proportion of the budget.
There is great concern at many of my schools. I was called to an emergency meeting of the governors because they are so worried. They want to do their best for their school and for the community. The Government have instituted changes that are still unclear. The changes take effect in April, but the schools do not know how they will be affected by the new arrangements.
I should tell the Ministers—there are now two on the Front Bench—that schools in Worcestershire are deeply unimpressed by the so-called new deal for schools. Schools in Worcestershire have not seen any of


that money. [Interruption.] If the Minister will write to me, I shall be keen to hear what schools in Bromsgrove have got from the new deal. [Interruption.] Labour Members may scream and shout as much as they like.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. No they may not. It would be helpful to the House if the hon. Lady could be heard against a rather quieter background.

Miss Kirkbride: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The simple fact is that schools in Bromsgrove believe that the Government's new deal applies only to other schools. Money goes to seriously dilapidated schools that have been run for so long by Labour-controlled local authorities that they are in such a state of disrepair as to be eligible for the money.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady. Have the schools in Bromsgrove entered the Bermuda triangle of Government funding only in the last 18 months, or were they also there during the previous 18 years?

Miss Kirkbride: The hon. Gentleman has not listened to what I have said. I am talking about the new deal, and he may wish to know that it is part of the Labour Government's policy. Money is announced, re-announced and then announced again. They tell us that they are spending megabucks on our schools, but none of my schools is even aware of the existence of that money because they are not receiving what they want. That happened under the hon. Gentleman's Government, not during the previous 18 years.
I shall conclude on class sizes to allow other hon. Members time to speak. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) made a fascinating and telling point about what has happened to the pledge on class sizes. The number of classes in which there are more than 40 children has doubled. The impression I receive from my schools is that the pressure points are merely being moved around. Schools are legally obliged to make progress on five, six and seven-year-olds, and much progress is therefore being made. Meanwhile, older children are in larger classes so that the schools can fund the smaller ones, a situation that testifies to the point made by my hon. Friend.
On the whole, it is better to have lower class sizes so that more individual attention can be given to children. However, there is a question of balance. There may, as the Conservatives have said, be occasions on which a classroom support teacher may be more effective than alternative methods.
Despite the underfunding provided to Bromsgrove by the new Labour Government, we are lucky to have excellent schools that produce excellent results. The hon. Member for Redditch may shake her head at that: her Labour-controlled county council has tried to close two of my excellent schools. Thank goodness we stopped that.

Jacqui Smith: I am pleased to hear the hon. Lady congratulate her schools. Will she take this opportunity to withdraw her comments in my local newspaper criticising teachers and children in Redditch schools,

and condemning their low standards? Her remarks were upsetting to my constituents, and several people have contacted me about what she said.

Miss Kirkbride: The hon. Lady misquotes what I said. The incident to which she refers was the programme for closures in Redditch schools. Sadly, some of my schools are drawn into the Redditch orbit, and the Labour-controlled county council decided to seek to close Beoley first school and Tardebigge Church aided school, excellent rural schools to which her Government are meant to be committed. Other schools in Redditch were not earmarked for closure although their results were not as good as those in my schools.

Jacqui Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Kirkbride: I have answered the hon. Lady, so she might as well sit down. She has had her moment in which to make her point, and she completely misquoted what I said. It is a matter of record in the local newspaper, and I stand by what I have said today as it is the same as what I said to the local newspaper.
I have excellent schools in my constituency, and some of the very good ones are in Hagley. However happy one may be in principle about the reduction in class sizes and the 30-pupil limit, I have a prediction to make, for the benefit of Labour Members and the Ministers: I now see a steady flow of extremely irate parents who would kill to get their children into some of my first schools, but whose children are now being deprived of the chance to go to those first schools because of the arbitrary limits set by the Labour Government; and I fear that that trickle will become a great flow. Despite the Government's good intentions—perhaps I am being generous—setting a limit of 30 pupils in certain classes is not necessarily the right way forward. Many of my constituents will strongly oppose that limit when it becomes a strict rule in a few years time.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Much of my teaching career took place during the years of Conservative Government. Those years brought constant upheaval, massive new burdens and policies such as the expansion of the assisted places scheme and grant-maintained schools, many of which were given benefits not available to other schools to encourage them to opt out. Those years also witnessed declining pupil behaviour, despite huge increases in expulsions, and poor standards. After 18 years of Conservative Government, half of all our 11-year-olds failed to reach the levels expected for their age in maths and English; and one in 12 pupils failed to achieve one GCSE at the end of their school career.
A burden greater than all of those has already been mentioned by some of my hon. Friends—unbridled competition, which, rather than supporting individual school improvement, was the driving force behind the Conservative Government's programme. The Tory belief was that the education system could be treated as a market: if raw statistics were published and free parental choice allowed, good schools would expand and poor schools close. In reality, schools had the burden of back-door selection and two-tier comprehensive education.
That led to teachers who were struggling with pupils with special needs being undervalued, and feeling undervalued. It led to schools that were trying to cope


with pupils who had difficult emotional and behavioural problems being labelled as bad schools. The way in which the Conservative Government pursued their policies created the biggest burdens that could be imposed on any school: the feeling that, unless pupils achieved high academic excellence, the school had failed, and so had the teachers.
Initiative after initiative came into schools, but they were all driven by a philosophical thrust that fundamentally misunderstood the dynamics of school improvement and the real meaning of raising standards for all pupils, and not only those at a particular level. Against that background, the Labour Government are trying to raise standards for all children, increase achievement in all schools and remotivate the teaching profession, while rebuilding the fabric of the schools within which children are taught.
Our policies are motivated by a belief in the comprehensive principle. It is time to restate our commitment to the comprehensive principle: it might need modernising and changing, but that principle offers more children the opportunity to make the best of their ability than any of the alternative systems on offer. Through support and encouragement as well as stricture and demand, we shall move forward and improve our schools. That will require new initiatives and make new demands on schools, but we shall act sensibly and constructively to raise the achievements of all the pupils in our schools.
The numeracy and literacy projects have been well supported, with a wide range of materials and training available. The national curriculum for primary schools has been made more flexible, thus reducing the burden on schools and enabling them to implement the national numeracy and literacy strategies. The Tories complain about the burden that the numeracy and literacy strategies place on schools. From my experience, there is no bigger burden on schools than having large numbers of pupils who cannot read or write.

Mr. Fraser: rose—

Mr. Coaker: I am sorry, but there is not enough time. Other hon. Members wish to make their own contributions.
If children cannot master basic skills at an early age, the consequences follow them through their school years and fundamentally affect their life chances. Does the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) really oppose strategies that address such problems?
I also commend the initiative with respect to 14 and 16-year-olds, which has not been mentioned in great detail tonight. Pupils of that age are often the most difficult in schools. Greater flexibility in that part of the curriculum to provide more work-based and work-related learning for pupils, in co-operation and liaison with local further education colleges, should lead to a reduction in truancy. Not only will those pupils benefit from that education entitlement, but other pupils whose education is often adversely affected by the disaffection of the first group will be taught in a better environment.
I turn to other aspects of the proposals before us today, particularly attitudes to the teaching profession. I know many teachers in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire,

many of whom are my former colleagues and friends. Everyone accepts that the majority of teachers work extremely hard and do their best in often difficult circumstances. However, that is no reason for not making changes for the better.
When I was teaching, we would always ask, "Why are teachers promoted only when they take on some sort of management function?" Why can teachers not stay in the classroom, be promoted and receive better pay just because they are good teachers? That is one of the great tragedies of the current pay structure: if teachers who are good in the classroom want to advance, they must be promoted out of the classroom. Consultation is under way at the moment in an effort to address that pay structure problem.
Another issue is particularly demoralising to teachers: we must ensure that teachers are allowed to teach in the classroom. I believe that some of the problems in our schools have nothing to do with pay or any of the other issues that we often discuss. I think that teachers are often frustrated because they cannot teach. People enter the teaching profession because they wish to pass on an excitement about history, a joy of music or an appreciation of the beauty of poetry or art. However, the problems that young people bring into the classroom often prevent teachers from teaching. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are pursuing constructive initiatives in an attempt to improve behaviour in schools. That is a fundamental move.
If we could tackle that problem, we would remotivate teachers, because they want to teach. Many of the schools in which I have taught—I do not mean to be disrespectful to them, and I am sure that many hon. Members will understand this point—have operated as social hospitals. Schools are often the only places where there is any stability in communities. We must recognise the work of schools and recognise and value the work of teachers. If that happens, some of the other problems will disappear.
It is my fundamental belief that the issue is not one of pay, but of teachers wanting to be able to teach and feeling that they are valued for doing so. If we achieve that, we will raise standards and be able to change the structures in schools. I therefore welcome many of the initiatives—which the hon. Member for Havant would call burdens—to try to establish the behaviour plans and home-school contracts that are so essential in raising standards in schools and remotivating our teaching force.
I shall be brief so that other hon. Members will, hopefully, have an opportunity to speak. The Government's initiatives are not burdens. They will tackle education in an attempt to raise standards for all pupils. The previous Conservative Government's education policy failed because their philosophical thrust was to try to benefit those at the top and abandon the rest. Some schools and their teachers were regarded as good, and the rest were abandoned. The Government have to deal with that legacy and work within its limits.
There is cynicism about the motives behind the Government's reforms, but they are to raise standards in schools for all pupils; to restore and improve teacher morale; to value all our pupils, whatever their circumstances, and to improve the achievement of every pupil in every school in the land, irrespective of where they live, their parents and other associated factors. If we get that right, we will have proved ourselves to be a truly


radical Government—as I believe we shall be—who are determined to make tough choices and face a rough ride in the short term to achieve the long-term goal of re-establishing the principles that I have mentioned and developing an education system that offers opportunity to all pupils, not just a few.

Mr. Howard Flight: Conservative Members have not raised a party political or general political matter. We are repeating what the people in schools in our constituencies are saying to us. I have been visiting schools in West Sussex for the past three years and, in the past six months, I have been overwhelmed by complaints from heads and teachers, many of whom are not our political supporters, about the excessive burden of paperwork. Labour Members seem to be particularly touchy about us discussing practical rather than doctrinaire problems.
There is a growing gap between propaganda and reality. In my part of the world, schools are having to sack teachers because the overall effect of the massive cut in standard spending assessment money means that there is no extra money for schools. The gap between expectancy and reality is enormous.
I want particularly to deal with class sizes because schools in my constituency typically serve communities, and their intake numbers vary by between 40 and 60 pupils each year. Schools have managed by having two classes of about 30 or one class of 40 with an assistant. Heads have expressed bitter criticism about the fact that they are now faced with having too much mixed-age teaching or simply refusing to take pupils in years in which they have a large intake. Other schools are often eight or 10 miles away and it is a nightmare for parents to transport their children to a different school, so schools feel obliged to serve their communities. For schools of that size, a mandatory class size of 30 does not work; it creates more problems than it solves.
The Government should listen to what heads and teachers are saying. It is no good saying, "We are jolly well going to throw all these consultative documents and instructions at you, and they will make you better teachers in better schools, come what may." I suggest, gently, that that is not happening. Teachers need to be motivated; pay is not the problem. They need to be able to get on with running their schools well, and not be overburdened with excessive rigidity and paperwork.

Mrs. Theresa May: I am pleased to be winding up this important and interesting debate, in which several of my hon. Friends have made excellent speeches. One of the most noticeable features of the speeches by Labour Members was the reluctance to defend the Government's record. They wanted to talk about the past, not the present, under their Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has pointed out, we see a gap between the Government's propaganda and what is happening in schools. Sadly, there is a lack of understanding among Government Front Benchers—and Government Back Benchers—of what is happening as a result of their policy. As my hon. Friend has said, the points that we are raising are the same ones that teachers and head teachers raise

when we visit schools. They are upset, concerned and worried about the burdens that are being put on them and the level of bureaucracy with which they are having to cope under this Government. They are especially concerned because, frankly, they had not expected that from this Government. In future, they will not believe the promises and pledges that Labour makes on the doorstep.
We have exchanged statistics in this debate. Indeed, I might very well quote a few in a minute. The debate is important not just because it is about bureaucracy and paperwork, but because it is about what happens in the education of children in the classroom; about educational standards, and how we raise them; and about how the Government's multiplicity of so-called initiatives is tying down teachers and schools, reducing diversity and choice and taking teachers away from the job of improving standards.
Whenever I meet teachers I hear cries to cut the bureaucracy to let us do our jobs.
We want to make sure that teachers spend their time teaching and not in unnecessary bureaucracy.
Teachers should be free to teach not slaves to paperwork.
Raising standards and reducing unnecessary paperwork in schools to allow teachers to teach are issues that go hand in hand.
Teachers should be able to concentrate on pupils' work, not paperwork.
One might think that those quotations were from speeches of my hon. Friends in this debate, or perhaps even of disgruntled governors or disaffected teachers. Surprising though it may seem, given the nature and tone of the speech of the Minister for School Standards, who seemed reluctant to accept that there was any problem about bureaucracy in schools, every one of those quotations was from a Minister, as an initiative to cut bureaucracy and red tape in our schools was launched and relaunched.
What initiative did the Government take to cut red tape? They set up a working party, conducted a review, came up with a report, and followed it with a Department for Education and Employment circular. Following the working party's report a year ago, what did the Government say? They said that they would make every effort to ensure that the report's recommendations bore fruit. What action were they going to take? They were going to set up another division in the DfEE. This must be the only Government whose response to cutting bureaucracy is to employ more bureaucrats.
What has happened since the report was issued in January 1998? Three months and 59 guidance notes, directives, surveys and other documents later, the Government announced another relaunch. Two months and 48 guidance notes, directives, surveys and other documents later, the Government announced another relaunch. One month and 21 guidance notes, directives, surveys and other documents later, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), stood up at a local education authority conference in Torquay and pledged his personal crusade to cut bureaucracy. What happened in the following six months? One hundred and ninety-four guidance notes, directives, surveys and other documents.
It would be farcical if it were not so important, because this is not just about the numbers of Government documents; it is about the fact that, the more time is taken


by teachers to deal with the paperwork, the less time they have to educate children and to improve standards in the classroom.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker)—teachers want to teach. That is why we raised this issue tonight. Teachers do not want to be stuck looking at paperwork, dealing with forms and reports and reading endless directives and guidelines from the Government.
The Minister for School Standards said that everything was all right because, in September 1998, the Government had decided that they would approach things differently on bureaucracy. She said that, since last September, it was all perfectly all right and there were no problems. I see the Minister shake her head, but she told us that, since last September, the bureaucracy had actually reduced. Perhaps she needs to read the survey commissioned last month by the NAT/UWT and conducted by the Electoral Reform Society, which showed that the situation had not changed in 60 per cent. of schools, and had got worse in a quarter of schools.
It is little wonder that, today, the general secretary of the NAS/UWT issued a press release headed, "Bureaucracy Bugs Teachers. Workload Worries Remain". It says:
The Government is addicted to one initiative after another. The need to provide booster classes and after-hours support for children to meet ambitious Government targets recently added to the excessive workload being placed upon teachers. Individual, school, LEA and National Targets are raining down in their thousands upon teachers. Mismanagement of the Literacy Hour has not helped and the forthcoming numeracy strategy is awaited with trepidation by many primary teachers.
The Government will have to get a grip on this problem, otherwise its bureaucratic proposals for appraisal and management performance, outlined in the recently published Green Paper, will cause the education system to sink under its own weight.

Miss Melanie Johnson: First, I should like to challenge your idea that ambition is something—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not my ideas; the hon. Lady's.

Miss Johnson: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to challenge the hon. Lady's ideas about our ambitions for the education service. Does she not share those ambitions, and does she not believe that ambition for the future of our schools and the education of our children has a right and proper place? Does her memory not extend back to where mine does—I am sure that it does, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and remember things like the pantechnicons that arrived delivering national curriculum documents, full of unnecessary prescription, to schools throughout the country, at a time when legislation rained down upon the education service year after year? Does her memory not go back—

Mr.Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has gone far beyond what she would normally be allowed.

Mrs. May: After that intervention, Lady has no ambitions in the House. The answer is that we believe in raising educational standards. We are

debating the subject tonight because what the Government are doing is not raising standards in education, but mitigating against improving standards in education.
I suggest that the hon. Lady listens to the teachers' views. I quote some comments that were made during the survey commissioned by the NAS/UWT, conducted last month, in which teachers were asked,
What are the problems associated with workload which still need to be addressed at your workplace?
Some answers were:
There are too many bits of paperwork. What we are supposed to be doing is educating children.
I would think that the main thing is a lot of extra paperwork. Multiple copies of planning sheets and assessments are time consuming, as is the admin for literacy hour.
Initiatives to try and raise achievement are causing an increase in workload, for example targeting.
There are not enough hours in the day to get through everything. You can't teach and do paperwork at the same time—one has to suffer and it's usually the teaching.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, on school visit after school visit, I have been told by head teachers and chairmen of governors in my constituency that the one thing that they pray for is that the Government will stop burying them in paper? My hon. Friend has met head teachers in my constituency. Does she agree that that is one thing that heads and other teachers are telling the Government?

Mrs. May: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. He is right. He shows how much closer Conservative Members are to understanding what teachers and head teachers say about the work load introduced by the Government than are Ministers and Labour Members. As he said, it is precisely because teachers and head teachers complain about the work load that we have chosen to debate the matter today.

Helen Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: No, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) made rather a long intervention.
It is not just teachers and head teachers who are complaining about the work load and paperwork. Labour Members of Parliament are also doing so. In an Adjournment debate on 11 January, the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor), who was in his place earlier today, referring to schools that he had visited in his constituency, said:
The chairs of governors of the schools … often said that they were drowning in a sea of paper … The continuing inflow of documents for the attention of chairs and members of governing bodies is reaching alarming proportions".—[Official Report, 11 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 76–77.]
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should discuss that with the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) who, in an extraordinary contribution to the debate, said that it was all the fault of teachers and nothing whatever to do with the Government.
I want to touch on four particular burdens impacting on schools. One is the bidding process, the problems of which were ably described by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). The Government's obsession with targets, as shown in one of the comments that I have just quoted,


is another problem impacting on schools. I welcome the Minister's statement that her entire Front-Bench team will resign if the literacy and numeracy targets are not reached by 2010. [Interruption.]She obviously has not told all her hon. Friends of that intention. The Minister with responsibility for higher education might be a little worried because standards are falling and the targets are even further from being reached than they were when the Secretary of State first said that he would offer his resignation.
A lot has been said about the literacy hour, which is placing real burdens on teachers. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) claimed that the Government would not intervene where schools were achieving and raising standards, but the point about the literacy hour is that the Government are intervening regardless of the standards that are being achieved by schools. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government were enabling and empowering, but, in the literacy hour, they are directing.
A primary school teacher in the north of England said:
I feel like an NQT in minute one of my career, not a seasoned professional who has ridden every merry-go-round that has been introduced and got off them again. All the things that have worked for me, the experience built up over those 25 years in the primary classroom have been replaced by a strategy that is too bulky to deliver, too onerous to plan and that has a 'knock-on' effect for the use of teaching areas, hall, quiet rooms etc … We know the stress that we feel and how we dread the job we once enjoyed, but no-one asks us or listens to us. We also know that when it fails it will be our fault. We dare not contemplate the Numeracy Hour. As our area secretary said, 'This is the stuff nervous breakdowns are made of.—
That is the teachers' reaction to the Government's imposition of the prescriptive literacy hour.
For the future, we have performance-related pay, with its cumbersome, unwieldy and bureaucratic proposals. The NAHT has calculated that, in the first year, the administration of the system will cost £250 million before a single pound has reached the pocket of a single teacher. It will create a two-tier teaching profession. It was sold on the basis that teachers would be rewarded for good performance but, as the Minister for School Standards made clear in Essex at the launch of the Green Paper, she did not think it right to pay people extra "for just teaching". This is not about giving teachers money for good performance; it is about requiring them to take on extra responsibilities and new contracts.
The NAS/UWT says that performance-related pay is woefully unmanageable and monstrously bureaucratic. Linda McMillan, a deputy head from Blackpool, said:
They stood there asking us how we could make something unworkable work.
The Government are inundating schools, teachers and governors with directives, diktats, guidance notes, information notes and paper after paper. The Government should rethink the timing of their teachers' pay proposals. They need to reconsider what they are doing, and ensure that they introduce compliance cost assessments for every directive, piece of paper and regulation that goes out from the Department for Education and Employment.
The Government went to the electorate promising that things can only get better. They did not say that they will get better if we are lucky. They did not say that they will get better after a few years. They did not say, "We'll try to make them better, but they might get worse." They promised that they could only get better. Teachers snowed

under with bureaucracy do not think that things are better. Teachers whose professionalism is taken away by Government diktat do not think they are better. Parents who see standards falling do not think they are better. The Government should stop lecturing teachers and should stop trying to grab the headlines. It is time they gave schools a break. Let teachers teach: our children deserve it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made that speech without any mention of parents, employers, governors or children. It is clear to me that she is now the teacher unions' friend, as I remarked to her at a National Union of Teachers conference on education action zones. I am not quite sure how well that goes down with her hon. Friends on the Back Benches. The vigour of her speech led me to think, yet again, that she is more than the shadow Secretary of State's third brain. Her one brain adds up to more than his two put together.
I was struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). When pressed, he sought to explain and justify his alliance with the Tories on this significant occasion by reference to two specific points with which he had difficulty: the bidding process, to which the hon. Member for Maidenhead also referred, and the children's Parliament. He could bring nothing else to bear. I am disappointed that he has not associated himself with our drive to raise standards, because I had hoped that the Liberal Democrats would do so.
I was delighted to receive—contrary to what the hon. Member for Maidenhead said—my hon. Friends' strong support for the Government's programme. It ranged from the philosophical run through Mao, Stalin and Hobbes by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who gave specific and powerful attention to the flimsy Tory document and list, and the excellent intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), which brought us back to standards and achievement and the comprehensive principle.
I was less convinced by the remarks of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) and his appeal for permanent revolution, and by the discourse of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) on the funding system in Worcestershire, although I was flattered that my meeting with her caused her such excitement.

Jacqui Smith: In the light of the confusion thrown into the debate by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), would it be helpful if I told my hon. Friend that in the financial year 1998–99 Worcestershire received £1.637 million under the new deal, including money for schemes in Bromsgrove, £3.796 million in a standards fund, and £600,000 towards the national grid for learning, on top of the £2,000 for each school for extra books?

Mr. Clarke: Now we know who the truly well-informed Member for the county of Worcestershire is.

Miss Kirkbride: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not give way.
I shall begin the substance of my speech by reference to the common ground between Members on the two Front Benches. It is common ground that we need to reduce the bureaucratic burden in schools.

Miss Kirkbride: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not give way, because I will not allow the debate on bureaucratic burdens in schools to be hijacked. If the hon. Lady wants to have her discourse, she is welcome to have it.
It is common ground that it is necessary to reduce the quantity of paper going to schools.

Mr. James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that, if the Minister mentions another hon. Member—in this instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride)—he should give way to her, so that she can reply to what he has said?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to understand that that is not a point of order. It is entirely a matter of convention. It is for the Minister to determine whether to give way.

Mr. Clarke: It is very striking—

Miss Kirkbride: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I will not. It is very striking—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the House must come to order. It is entirely up to the Minister whether he gives way. We cannot have a chorus of disapproval and counter-disapproval across the Chamber; we want to hear the end of the debate in an orderly manner.

Mr. Clarke: I shall say what I was trying to say. It is striking that Opposition Back Benchers should wish to debate funding in Worcestershire, rather than their motion. It is in connection with that motion that I wish to respond to Opposition Members' assertions.

Miss Kirkbride: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I have made it clear that I do not intend to give way to the hon. Lady.
I want to focus on the issues that the Opposition have raised—issues to which the Government wish to respond. I have begun by saying that it is common ground that we need to seek to reduce the amount of paper in schools. That is why we set up a working group, produced guidance and established demonstration projects to reduce it further. That is why we have initiated tighter action to reduce the number of documents that are sent out, and have produced guidance on changes in the law.

Mr. Phil Willis: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: Yes, I will. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Opposition have made their point.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way.
I would have liked to raise this issue during the debate. It relates specifically to what the Minister just said about reducing the amount of paper. One of the proposals that the Government have trumpeted is the proposal to put all schools on the internet: indeed, that was a manifesto promise. At present, only one in five primary schools is on the internet. When will the Government ensure that their election promise—which has now been delivered to BT and the cable companies in terms of their franchises—is delivered to our schools, so that they can reduce the amount of bureaucracy?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has been pursuing that in the House, and he has been right to do so. We have set the pledge for 2002, but we hope to fulfil it earlier. We have established a website with all the data, and schools can obtain data directly from the internet. We have launched a series of initiatives to reduce the amount of paper, and we shall proceed with that action.
What I really want to deal with, however, is the charge of opportunism that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch. These are the issues, and this is what our communications are about. First, there is inspection of the Ofsted system; secondly, there is the national curriculum; thirdly, there are the performance tables and data collection; fourthly, there is in-service teacher training; fifthly, there is reform of the teaching profession and teacher training; sixthly, there are local management of schools and their funding; and seventhly, there are special educational needs. On all those issues, the Conservative Government produced legislation, and imposed burdens on schools. In every case, we are reducing those burdens and making progress.

Mr. John Bercow: If the Minister's Government are as busy reducing burdens as he claims, can he explain why the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, Mr. Nigel de Gruchy, has described the Government's proposals for reform of the teaching profession as entirely inappropriate, woefully unmanageable and monstrously bureaucratic?

Mr. Clarke: Again, I am struck by the increasingly intimate relationship between the ultra-right among the Opposition and the teaching trade unions. Consultation is taking place, and we shall of course listen to every view that is expressed.
On Ofsted inspections, we are lightening the burden where the Tories increased it. On the national curriculum, the Tories went through the Dearing fiasco, while we are reducing the burden. We do not know what the Tories will do, although we heard from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) that they would scrap the literacy hour. We gather from the Leader of the Opposition that they will scrap the national curriculum altogether. On performance tables, we are reducing the burden.

Mr. Paterson: Earlier, the Minister for School Standards showed infernal arrogance and breathtaking contempt for one of Shropshire's most distinguished


teachers, Grahame Arnold, head teacher at Adams school in Wem. Will the Minister dissociate himself from her comments? Does he agree with Mr. Arnold that
local Education Authorities are now employing more staff to deal with the demands of Government legislation which means less teachers in the class room to teach children"?

Mr. Clarke: The reverse is true. I agreed with what my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards said. She summed up the position clearly. That is the position as it stands.
I continue down the list. On in-service training, it was the Tory Government who brought in Baker days in 1987, although I note that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) now wants to get rid of them. We are reducing the burden.
On the teaching profession overall, it was the Conservative Government who set up the Teacher Training Agency in 1994 and who developed the national curriculum for initial teacher training. It was the Conservative Government who brought performance-related pay into the public sector. It is we who seek to raise the esteem of the profession, to reduce the burden and to raise standards.
On fair funding, it is we who are putting more resources into schools. On special education, the Conservative Government legislated in 1993 and produced a code of practice. It is we who are targeting the real issues.
The issues are straightforward. The so-called burdens that the Opposition claim—[Interruption.] It is interesting that those Conservative Members on the Front Bench do not want to listen. That is a characteristic of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), the Northern Ireland spokesman. It shows what disqualifies him from his shadow role—he has no listening quality whatever.
We are reducing the burdens. We will continue to reduce them. The reason why we will continue—

Mr. St. Aubyn: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I will not give way.

Mr. St. Aubyn: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) must seek loudly to make an intervention. If he is refused, he must sit down.

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way. I will finish what I have to say.

Miss Kirkbride: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: No.
Our drive was, is and will continue to be to raise standards for children in our schools. We will do what we have to do to achieve that. We will carry through our policy of lightening the burden to allow teachers to teach and to work more effectively.
By the opportunist step of tabling the motion, the Conservative party has turned its back on the target of raising school standards. It is focused on the wrong target. It has truly become the party of reaction and no change.
The times call for change. Our children are growing up in a world of rapid social and economic change. Schools have to equip children to master that change. Schools and teachers are there to help children. We are there to help schools and teachers to do that.
I am sorry that the Tories are sticking their head in the sand and turning their back on the process. The true burden on schools over 18 years was the Conservative Government. The electorate removed that burden in May 1997. The burden of the Tory Government having been removed, the present Government are determined on a course of reducing burdens still further and raising standards for all still further. I believe and hope that the Liberal Democrats will reconsider their opportunistic stance and decide that they will commit themselves to what we are doing. I hope and believe—

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 334.

Division No. 84]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Collins, Tim


Allan, Richard
Colvin, Michael


Amess, David
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Curry, Rt Hon David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dafis, Cynog


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Ballard, Jackie
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Beggs, Roy
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Duncan, Alan


Bercow, John
Duncan Smith, Iain


Blunt, Crispin
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Faber, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fabricant, Michael


Brady, Graham
Fallon, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Feam, Ronnie


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Flight, Howard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Burnett, John
Fraser, Christopher


Burstow, Paul
Gale, Roger


Butterfill, John
Garnier, Edward


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Gibb, Nick


Cash, William
Gill, Christopher


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl



Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Chidgey, David
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chope, Christopher
Gray, James


Clappison, James
Green, Damian


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Grieve, Dominic


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hague, Rt Hon William



Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie






Hammond, Philip
Randall, John


Harris, Dr Evan
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Harvey, Nick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hawkins, Nick
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Heald, Oliver
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Ruffley, David


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
St Aubyn, Nick


Horam, John
Sanders, Adrian


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hunter, Andrew
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Spring, Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Steen, Anthony


Key, Robert
Streeter, Gary


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Swayne, Desmond


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Syms, Robert


Kirkwood, Archy
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lidington, David
Thompson, William


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Townend, John


Livsey, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Trend, Michael


Llwyd, Elfyn
Tyler, Paul


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tyrie, Andrew


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wallace, James


McLoughlin, Patrick
Walter, Robert


Madel, Sir David
Wardle, Charles


Major, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


Malins, Humfrey
Webb, Steve


Maples, John
Welsh, Andrew


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Whitney, Sir Raymond


May, Mrs Theresa
Whittingdale, John


Moore, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Moss, Malcolm
Willetts, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Willis, Phil


Norman, Archie
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Oaten, Mark
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Öpik, Lembit
Woodward, Shaun


Ottaway, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Page, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Paice, James



Paterson, Owen
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pickles, Eric
Mrs. Caroline Spelman and


Prior, David
Mr. Stephen Day.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benton, Joe


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bermingham, Gerald


Ainger, Nick
Berry, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Best, Harold


Allen, Graham
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blackman, Liz


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blears, Ms Hazel


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Blizzard, Bob


Ashton, Joe
Boateng, Paul


Atherton, Ms Candy
Borrow, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Austin, John
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Barnes, Harry
Browne, Desmond


Barron, Kevin
Buck, Ms Karen


Battle, John
Burden, Richard


Bayley, Hugh
Burgon, Colin


Beard, Nigel
Butler, Mrs Christine


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Begg, Miss Anne
Caborn, Richard


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bennett, Andrew F
Campbell—Savours, Dale





Cann, Jamie
Goggins, Paul


Caplin, Ivor
Golding, Mrs Llin


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chaytor, David
Grocott, Bruce


Clapham, Michael
Grogan, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clelland, David
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Coaker, Vernon
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cohen, Harry
Healey, John


Coleman, Iain
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Colman, Tony
Hepburn, Stephen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Heppell, John


Cooper, Yvette
Hesford, Stephen


Corbett, Robin
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hill, Keith


Corston, Ms Jean
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cranston, Ross
Hoey, Kate


Crausby, David
Home Robertson, John


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hope, Phil


Cummings, John
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Howells, Dr Kim


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Darvill, Keith
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hurst, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Hutton, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dawson, Hilton
Jenkins, Brian


Dean, Mrs Janet
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Denham, John
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald



Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Doran, Frank



Dowd, Jim
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Drew, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Keeble, Ms Sally


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Edwards, Huw
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Efford, Clive
Kidney, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ennis, Jeff
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Etherington, Bill
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fisher, Mark
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Laxton, Bob


Flint, Caroline
Lepper, David


Flynn, Paul
Leslie, Christopher


Follett, Barbara
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Linton, Martin


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Livingstone, Ken


Foulkes, George
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fyfe, Maria
Lock, David


Galloway, George
Love, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
McAllion, John


Gardiner, Barry
McAvoy, Thomas


Gerrard, Neil
McCabe, Steve


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Godman, Dr Norman A
McDonagh, Siobhain


Godsiff, Roger
McDonnell, John






McFall, John
Rooney, Terry


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McIsaac, Shona
Rowlands, Ted


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ruane, Chris


McNamara, Kevin
Ruddock, Joan


McNulty, Tony
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


MacShane, Denis
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mactaggart, Fiona
Salter, Martin


McWalter, Tony
Savidge, Malcolm


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sawford, Phil


Mallaber, Judy
Sedgemore, Brian


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Shaw, Jonathan


Marek, Dr John
Sheerman, Barry


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Singh, Marsha


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Maxton, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Meale, Alan



Merron, Gillian
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Southworth, Ms Helen


Miller, Andrew
Spellar, John


Moffatt, Laura
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Steinberg, Gerry


Morley, Elliot
Stevenson, George


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mountford, Kali
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mudie, George
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mullin, Chris
Stoate, Dr Howard


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stott, Roger


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Norris, Dan
Stringer, Graham


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Hara, Eddie
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Olner, Bill



O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Temple—Morris, Peter


Pearson, Ian
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Perham, Ms Linda
Timms, Stephen


Pickthall, Colin
Tipping, Paddy


Pike, Peter L
Touhig, Don


Plaskitt, James
Trickett, Jon


Pond, Chris
Truswell, Paul


Pope, Greg
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Walley, Ms Joan


Primarolo, Dawn
Wareing, Robert N


Prosser, Gwyn
Watts, David


Purchase, Ken
White, Brian


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Wicks, Malcolm


Quinn, Lawrie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Radice, Giles



Rapson, Syd
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Wills, Michael


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wilson, Brian


Rooker, Jeff
Winnick, David





Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wise, Audrey



Wood, Mike



Woolas, Phil
Tellers for the Noes:


Wray, James
Mr. David Hanson and


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House commends the Government for the introduction of vital measures to improve standards, particularly in literacy and numeracy; applauds the extra flexibility it has introduced in the national curriculum for primary pupils and support for work-related learning for 14–16 year olds; welcomes the Government's support for greater diversity through specialist schools and education action zones; believes that the extra £19 billion for schools will underpin the drive for higher standards and welcomes plans to reward good teachers well; congratulates Ministers for introducing much greater clarity to mailings for schools with a view to keeping paperwork to a minimum; recognises the huge benefits which the National Grid for Learning and voluntary schemes of work bring in reducing unnecessary paperwork; and notes that the Opposition has no proposals to raise standards in schools.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Trade Union Subscription Deductions (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Ordered,

EDUCATION

That the Education (Aptitude for Particular Subjects) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

That the Education (Determination of Admission Arrangements) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

That the Education (Objections to Admission Arrangements) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

That the Education (Relevant Areas for Consultation on Admission Arrangements) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

That the Education (School Information) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Deaf People (Access to Justice)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Tom Levitt: I remind the House that I am a trustee of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People—an unremunerated post—although tonight I speak in a personal capacity. It is unusual to have debates on issues relating to deaf people two nights running in the House, but I am sure that 8.5 million people in this country with hearing impairments welcome those debates.
In sign language the signs for politics and justice are very similar. That is not surprising, because if politics is about anything it is about securing a fair and just society. That means, among other things, a society in which all have equal access to justice. Our legal system reflects society in many ways. In one respect it reflects society well: in society and in the legal system there is a lack of understanding of the communication needs of people with hearing impairments. That leads to inconvenience, frustration and, ultimately, injustice.
How many people use hearing aids? The answer is about 2 million, with a further 2 million who would benefit from one. How many magistrates use hearing aids? I do not know, but their age profile would suggest that the proportion using hearing aids is higher than that of the general population. How many magistrates courts have induction loops designed to enhance the use of hearing aids? No central figures are kept, but I suspect that the answer is very few. I understand that no courtrooms in Derbyshire have loop systems to help people with hearing aids. It is not compulsory to fit induction loops in courts, although magistrates, defendants, witnesses, court staff, lawyers and the public would all benefit, and justice would be heard to be done.
How many courts include induction loops in their assessment of the accessibility of courtrooms? Those questions illustrate the lack of facilities for people with hearing impairments and a lack of checks on the accessibility of legal buildings, and they expose the Court Service's lack of awareness of the needs of more than 8 million people: one in seven of the people in Britain today.
In September 1998, the Court Service told the RNID that at least one courtroom in every new court building would henceforth be fitted with a loop system but that there was no facility for fitting them anywhere else retrospectively. That is simply not good enough. Are new courtrooms, let alone old ones, designed and lit to facilitate lip reading? Are court staff trained in deaf awareness? My guess is no, but those are reasonable, low-cost adjustments that I would expect the service to make in future.
"Reasonable adjustment" is the phrase used in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and purveyors of goods and services, which includes the Court Service, are obliged to implement it from later this year. Not only the Court Service is at fault. The police and the Prison Service, with some honourable exceptions, are equally guilty and, as far as I know, so is the probation service.
One in every 1,000 people in this country is profoundly deaf, with no useful hearing at all. Judge Stephen Tumim, the former chief inspector of prisons and the father of a deaf child, has said:
Magistrates nowadays tend to send more Deaf people to prison on the basis that probation officers cannot deal with them adequately and I think the prisons make entirely inadequate arrangements.
Let us consider how the tendency to send more deaf people to prison than chance would dictate might come about. Two men have an argument outside a pub, late at night. Neither is terribly drunk. One—let us call him A—is profoundly deaf and uses sign language. The other is hearing. They have an altercation and the police arrive. One of the men is coherent and relatively restrained. One is gesticulating and making incoherent noises. Which of the men is the bigger threat to law and order? Which is the more guilty? Which is more likely to be handcuffed?
In this example, in an instant judgment, the police officer decides that A, with his grunting and his waving arms, is most in need of restraint, and he slaps the handcuffs on; but handcuffs gag a deaf person, whose first or only language is sign language. A becomes more angry and frustrated and further consequences inevitably follow. This story is imaginary, but not exceptional, in a country where deaf people are refused entry to pubs, forced to leave clubs and evicted from holiday camps. Instances of all three have been reported in the past couple of years.
Because they communicate in sign, and sometimes make loud and unusual noises which are judged by some people to be offensive to other guests, deaf people have been treated extremely unfairly. Under those circumstances, is it surprising if deaf people's frustration can occasionally boil over into anger and perhaps even violence?
Mr. A is taken along to the police station, unable to express himself as his hands are fixed behind him. Fortunately, the desk sergeant immediately recognises that A is deaf and the police constable who brought him in laughs in embarrassment and makes light of his mistake. The deaf man thinks that the policeman is laughing at him, which does not help his confidence in the system. Mr. A does not understand what is happening because, being deaf from birth—and like most people who are deaf from birth—his lip-reading skills are minimal. Mr. A is searched, and two telephone numbers are found in his pocket. Recognising the need for communication support, the desk sergeant tries to call the numbers to try to find a friend for the deaf person.
The first call produces an odd electronic noise when the phone is answered, which the sergeant does not
recognise. He thinks that there is something wrong with the line. In fact, it is a text telephone. Some police stations have text telephones, or minicoms—many do not. In this case, the policeman does not recognise it. The second number gets an answer. It is A's 17-year-old sister, who is hearing. She is very distressed to hear what is going on, and she comes to the police station immediately.
The sergeant rings the contact number in his book for a freelance sign language interpreter but, by now, it is midnight on a Saturday, and the interpreter—who is not expecting the call—is either out or not answering the phone in the middle of the night. Do all police stations know when and how to contact a sign language interpreter? It is unlikely. There are fewer than 150 people with recognised sign language interpreting skills in Britain, and 50,000 people for whom it is their first or only functional language. They need that support.
The sister arrives at the police station. Fortunately, she can sign. Ten minutes later, she is interpreting for her brother, as best she can. However, she is not a qualified interpreter—very far from it. She is young, and unfamiliar with police terminology. She makes a lot of mistakes in her interpretation which, unwittingly, compromise her brother's position.
At the end of the interview, the police constable switches off the audio tape recording. He has a record of the interview which can be referred to later by both sides, as the law says he must—or has he? No, he has not. He has no record of what the accused person said in the interview; only a record of a second-rate interpretation, and no guarantee that the arrested person had even understood the questions being asked.
Why does our legal system not insist on having a professionally qualified interpreter used at this stage? Why is there no obligation to record on video interviews involving sign language, so that the accused's words are at least on record? Are the few sign language interpreters who do exist given proper training for working in legal situations? Is the Lord Chancellor on course to fulfil his pledge in 1998 that, as from 2001, all types of interpreters in court and police interviews should be qualified and registered?
If A was a foreigner, there would be less of a problem—the interpreter's words could always be checked against the audio recording of the original. The Home Office's view—reiterated a couple of weeks ago in another place—is that video-recording sign language interpreting of defendants and witnesses is not essential, and a matter for local discretion. That is quite inconsistent with the Lord Chancellor's ambition.
When Lord Williams of Mostyn said that sign language was just "an expression of English", he was showing a complete misunderstanding of the linguistic and cultural needs of deaf people. He dismissed the concerns expressed by noble Lords far too lightly. His statement was like saying that John Constable's "Hay Wain" and Charles Dickens's "Oliver Twist" were both written in the same language.
The absence of video evidence was discussed in an excellent publication called "Police and Deaf People: A Lack of Communication?", written last year by a police officer and published under the police research awards scheme. I commend it to my hon. Friend the Minister. The paper revealed that no fewer than 71 per cent. of police officers thought that it should be obligatory to record on video interviews involving sign language. Last December, that was also the conclusion of a conference of deaf and hearing professionals in London on "Equality Before the Law: Deaf People's Access to Justice", organised by the University of Durham.
Let us go back to the courts. We have seen that people who use lip-reading or hearing aids do not have their major communication needs met in court, but what about sign language users like A? In 1995, a trial collapsed because the interpreting arrangements fell down.
Do deaf people get British sign language support in court when they need it? Yes, they do. Since April last year, the Lord Chancellor has paid for interpreters for sign language where they are required for deaf defendants in court. In the first nine months of that scheme, the Lord Chancellor has paid for sign language interpreters in no fewer than 71 cases—not an insignificant number.
Are those sign language interpreters treated according to their professional code, with guarantees of preparation time, breaks during the day, and the possibility of working in teams where necessary? That is a genuine question. I do not know the answer; I expect that it is mixed. Are deaf defendants and their interpreters videotaped in court so that mistakes can be checked back to source? No.
What if A had not been a defendant, but a member of the jury. Let us consider an example. We shall call him James. James used to be a highly successful business man. He is now the chief executive of a major charity with an annual turnover of several million pounds. He is a senior member of a Government task force and has spoken at conferences at 10 Downing street and elsewhere.
James is barred from jury service. He is not fictitious. Why is he barred? Although he lip-reads well from close by, he needs the services of a note-taker or a Palantype keyboard operator. He has been profoundly deaf from birth but, unlike 50,000 others like him, he does not use sign language. He is barred from jury service because in the 1960s, I think, a judge refused to allow a 13th person in the jury room to give communication support to a deaf juror.
To their great credit, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and the Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), then an Opposition spokesman on home affairs, attempted to add a short clause to the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. It read:
The Secretary of State shall … set out the procedure by which all persons who are summoned to appear or take part in court proceedings, or taken into police custody, and for whom there is a requirement for either a qualified Sign Language interpreter, other forms of communication support or a technical assistive device may thus be provided with such assistance.
Needless to say, the amendment was not included in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Speaking at the Inner Temple on 13 February to a disability law conference, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor acknowledged that deficiency in the system, and committed the Government to bringing the legal system into accordance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend, when replying to the debate, would confirm that when the Lord Chancellor acknowledged the widespread concern that interpreters and carers were indeed being unreasonably excluded from the jury room, he included lip speakers, note takers and Palantype keyboard operators as well.
In that speech, the Lord Chancellor also said:
No degree of disability … should restrict any citizen to second class justice.
Finally, I shall deal with prison. There are more deaf people in prison than chance would dictate. I suspect that Judge Tumim was right in his observation. I am equally sure that there is no natural link between deafness and criminality. However, there is a link between the blindness of the system to the needs of deaf people and the years that some deaf people spend behind bars.
We isolate people in prison as a punishment. Deafness in prison is like solitary confinement. Some deaf prisoners do not understand how they got there or fully why, because no one ever explained to them in their own language. Nevertheless, I take the opportunity to praise


the work that is being done with deaf prisoners at Brixton prison. Deaf awareness is becoming a reality in the prison service as that pilot project seeks to expand, yet the prison officers involved would be the first to admit that they are only scratching the surface.
I believe that the Lord Chancellor's speech of two weeks ago could be the start of a new era in deaf people's access to justice. It is a start, although it is from a very low base. I am aware that the issues that I have raised do not fall easily into the responsibility of a single Government Department: the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor both have roles to play. In the name of joined-up government, I ask my hon. Friend to give a comprehensive and positive response to the points that I have raised, and to help to secure access to justice for all deaf people.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): It is good that the House has debated issues of concern to deaf people on two consecutive evenings. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) on securing the Adjournment debate and on speaking on an issue on which he feels very strongly and to which he has previously drawn the attention of hon. Members and my ministerial colleagues. He has again demonstrated his great knowledge of the subject.
My hon. Friend is uniquely well qualified to raise these issues, being a trustee of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and having himself learned to use British sign language. For many years, he has concerned himself with access issues for people with sensory impairment. The issues are wide ranging, but none is more important than access to justice.
I assure my hon. Friend that we are anxious to do all that we can to see that deaf people are treated fairly by the criminal justice system, whether they are involved in it as suspects, victims or witnesses. My hon. Friend raised many issues. If I am unable to respond to all of them, I shall undertake to liaise with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department to ensure that they are covered in some other way.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the communication needs of deaf people. British sign language is used by many of those people, although, as my hon. Friend showed, it is by no means used by them all. As it has a spatial element, it is not an easy language to interpret, and interpreting legal concepts using British sign language is all the more challenging, as my hon. Friend showed in his examples.
The point has been well made that police interviews with deaf suspects who are British sign language users should be recorded on videotape. That suggestion was made in a report, "Police and Deaf People: A Lack of Communication?", which was written by an officer in the Lancashire constabulary and published in September 1997 under the Home Office police research award scheme.
The reason for the suggestion is that the present requirement to make a contemporaneous written note of an interview so that a deaf suspect can take it away is not equivalent to providing a complete record of the

interview. It is argued, with some reason, that communication using British sign language can be fully and accurately recorded only on videotape.
As with all reports published under PRAS, the report was sent to chief officers of police with a statement that the views in the report are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Home Office. All PRAS reports leave discretion for individual chief officers to decide whether to implement their recommendations. My hon. Friend made it clear—I know that he is not entirely happy about this point—that it is open to chief officers to implement the report's recommendation to record interviews with deaf suspects on videotape, provided that the necessary equipment is available and provided that the deaf suspect consents.
It may seem surprising that any deaf suspect would object to an interview being recorded on video. However, some suspects prefer their appearance and body language not to be included in the recording of an interview. As it is not a statutory requirement for the interview to be video recorded—unlike the position with audiotape recording—suspects can object, and it is necessary for the police to have their consent if they are to proceed.
As I have explained, to make it a requirement for the police to video record interviews with deaf suspects would require a change in legislation, which would have considerable cost implications for the police. Video-recording equipment, with additional cameras to capture all those present, would have to be installed in all police stations where interviews with suspects take place in case a deaf suspect using British sign language might need to be interviewed. The equipment would have to be on hand because time limits apply to police detention.
Precise figures on the number of deaf suspects whom the police need to interview are not readily available, but they are believed to be a very small proportion of the total number of suspects. The responsibility for provision of equipment is a matter for individual chief officers, who have to determine their spending priorities. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Home Office is trying to raise awareness of the issues surrounding communication between the police and deaf people, and to encourage the making of suitable local arrangements. It may not be possible to install video-recording equipment in every police station, but, for example, it would be sensible to ensure that the equipment is available in an area where a community of deaf people lives.

Mr. Levitt: At one time, it was not compulsory to audiotape interviews. At that time, were people given the option to choose to be recorded? It seems to me that deaf people should at least have the opportunity to have a video recording made of an interview; one camera would be sufficient for the purpose, as one microphone is sufficient for an audiotape.

Mr. Howarth: That is a point that I was trying to make, albeit in a slightly different way. My hon. Friend must appreciate that not every person would want a video recording to be made, but we shall further consider the point.
As I have mentioned, the research report on the police and deaf people has been sent to the chief officers of all the police forces in the United Kingdom, as has another research report on disability awareness produced by a


police officer from Strathclyde police. All police forces have been invited to attend seminars on the findings of those two research papers. The seminars are aimed at senior police management and are designed to raise awareness of the issues covered in the reports. The authors of both reports will act as facilitators at the seminars, which are to be held in five centres—Perth, York, Rugby, Bristol, and London—between 22 and 31 March this year.
I should also mention the Home Office report "Speaking up for Justice" on vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, which included a number of recommendations that may improve the treatment of deaf witnesses, especially those who are particularly vulnerable because of some other factor or disability. The implementation of the report's recommendations will include the development of information for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, and address issues such as accreditation for those who act as communicators or intermediaries for vulnerable witnesses.
The House will be pleased to learn that the interpreting needs of deaf people who are involved with the criminal justice system are also being considered by a sub-group of the trial issues group, which is an inter-agency group—

joined-up government—working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system as a whole. That group set up an interpreters working group to facilitate implementation of the national agreement and to promote its principles. The group works closely with representatives of interpreters associations and, in particular, with the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People, to ensure that the needs of the deaf or hard of hearing in the criminal justice system, whether as defendants, victims or witnesses, are properly addressed.
I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that the Government are conscious of the needs of deaf people within the criminal justice system. It is partly thanks to his efforts that we have been made aware of the problems. The Government are taking what we believe to be pragmatic but effective steps to ensure that deaf people are treated fairly within the criminal justice system, and today's debate is one more step along that road.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.